SAVE AMERICAN WORKERS ACT OF 2014
(House of Representatives - April 03, 2014)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages H2861-H2885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   SAVE AMERICAN WORKERS ACT OF 2014

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule 
XIX, further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2575) to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 30-hour threshold for 
classification as a full-time employee for purposes of the employer 
mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and replace 
it with 40 hours, will now resume.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed on 
Wednesday, April 2, 2014, 1 hour and 46 minutes of debate remained on 
the bill, as amended.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) has 54\1/2\ minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 51\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Without objection, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin) will 
control the time of the gentleman from Indiana, and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) will control the time of the gentleman from New 
York.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Arkansas.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act. 
This Act would restore the traditional 40-hour definition of a full-
time job.
  Washington may think that it knows best, but that is simply not true. 
This provision in ObamaCare is a perfect example of how the law hurts 
the very people it was intended to help. In Arkansas, we try to apply a 
little common sense. We all know 30 hours isn't full time, but that is 
what ObamaCare says, and no one seems to know why. We had a hearing in 
the Ways and Means Committee, and many of those who testified were 
puzzled as to why 30 hours was chosen. Even in France, a full-time job 
is 35 hours a week. Because of ObamaCare's mandates and taxes, 
employers are cutting workers' hours and are replacing full-time folks 
with part-time folks. This is real. We have seen this in Arkansas.
  Let me give you some examples:
  Arkansas State University reduced some workers to a maximum of 29 
hours per week. The Area Agency on Aging of Western Arkansas cut hours 
for hundreds of home health aides and drivers to 28 hours per week. 
Pulaski Technical College limited hours for adjunct faculty, directly 
impacting students' education choices.

                              {time}  1230

  Just yesterday, I received a letter from the Arkansas Hospitality 
Association. They say ObamaCare's 30-hour rule will hurt roughly 
100,000 hospitality workers.
  These are folks who are working hard, playing by the rules, and 
trying to make it. All they want is a fair shot at success. That is 
what they deserve, but ObamaCare has taken that away.
  According to research by the Hoover Institution, this ObamaCare rule 
puts 2.6 million workers making under $30,000 a year at risk. Almost 90 
percent of these workers do not have college degrees. Over 60 percent 
of them are women. These are good, hardworking Americans, but they may 
lose their hours or even their jobs thanks to ObamaCare.
  Wasn't this law supposed to help people get health insurance? But 
what are they getting? They are getting no insurance and less pay. 
Incredible.
  I want to thank my colleague and good friend, Mr. Young, for 
introducing this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this bipartisan solution that will help people keep their jobs and 
higher wages.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman who has just spoken has it backwards. What would hurt 
American workers is not the Affordable Care Act. Millions have signed 
up to be covered. What would hurt American workers is this bill.
  I said yesterday--and no one has refuted it--this bill would mean 
that 1 million people, according to CBO, would lose their employer-
based health insurance. By definition, these are people who are 
working. They would lose their employer-based health insurance. That is 
what CBO has estimated, and no one has refuted it.
  It would increase the number, according to CBO, of uninsured by half 
a million. No one has refuted this.
  CBO also says that it would add $74 billion to the deficit--again, 
this is CBO--and no one on the Republican side has refuted this.
  This would put five times more people at risk of adverse effects than 
would be true under any other circumstance.
  So, essentially, you have a bill that would cost 1 million people 
their employer-based health insurance, would increase the number of 
uninsured by about half a million, and would add $74 billion to the 
deficit.
  Instead of talking about unemployment insurance, instead of talking 
about minimum wage, instead of talking about immigration legislation, 
we have a bill up today that would have these adverse consequences.
  We would be passing a bill that will never go anywhere in the Senate, 
and because we aren't acting on these other measures, they are 
spreading out debate on this bill for 2 days. When it leaves here, it 
goes nowhere. It will be vetoed by the President, if it ever passed the 
Senate, which it never will.
  So this is worse than an exercise in futility. This is an exercise in 
doing harm, when ACA is bringing benefits to millions and millions of 
people. It is deeply unfortunate.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my time 
be controlled by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  Mr. MULLIN. I would like to thank my colleague from Arkansas for 
bringing this to the people's attention.
  Madam Speaker, it is almost funny. The President wants to take 
something that is the heartbeat of America--and that is our work 
ethic--and redefine it by saying that 30 hours is considered full time 
now. What are we teaching the generations that are coming behind us if 
we say you can work less and still be considered full time?
  The backbone of this country was created by entrepreneurs and 
individuals that got up and worked hard, worked long hours, and they 
did what it took to be successful.

[[Page H2862]]

  Now, this President has given the generation coming behind us, which 
is my five kids, and redefining what is called full time by saying it 
is okay to work 30 hours because it is convenient to a piece of 
legislation that is bankrupting this country called ObamaCare.
  Now, what is it that we are really trying to teach this generation? 
Are we trying to teach this generation that staying home and working 
fewer hours is okay?
  My colleagues on the opposite side stood up and said that it is good 
for people to work less hours because they can spend more time at home, 
but yet the people this is going to affect want to work more. They are 
trying to pull themselves out of the situations they are in.
  My goal as a father is to teach my kids the value of work. We want to 
make sure our kids get a great education. I get that. But what is an 
education without a work ethic?
  And yet this administration, the one that is trying to say they are 
going to protect the youth, is making excuses and excuses and excuses 
for them to sit home and be okay with 30 hours a week.
  Being okay isn't what drove this country to be the greatest country 
in the world. We are better than okay. We are above being okay. We are 
the best, and it is because of our work ethic. This shouldn't be used 
as a political ploy by this President.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, on a rainy September day in 2008, a constituent of 
mine named Ingrid was badly injured after a terrible fall in her home. 
She was rushed to the emergency room, where she was cared for and her 
life was spared, yet Ingrid came out of that experience stuck with a 
$23,000 hospital bill because she couldn't afford to have health 
insurance. A few months later, Ingrid was forced to sell her home to 
pay off that enormous hospital bill.
  Today, on a rainy day in April of 2014, there is a different story to 
tell. It is a rainy day in Seattle, not here. It is the story of the 
Affordable Care Act, the story of 7.1 million mothers and sons, fathers 
and daughters, who have a newfound sense of health security and peace 
of mind.
  That is 7.1 million honest, hardworking Americans, in addition to the 
2 million young adults who are protected by staying on their parents' 
plan, in addition to the millions more who are now covered through the 
Children's Health Insurance Program and Medicaid expansion. One of them 
is Ingrid.
  Ingrid's life is vastly different now from what it was in 2008. She 
still is one of the hardest working people her friends and neighbors 
have ever met. She still loves the outdoors and drives a pickup truck, 
but today, she is happy, healthy, and covered because of the ACA.
  So as this Chamber, for the 52nd time, considers a radical and 
extremist Republican bill to kill the Affordable Care Act, I stand with 
millions of people who have been covered because of the ACA and the 
millions who still need health security. I stand in opposition to the 
idea that this Nation is incapable of guaranteeing health security for 
all its citizens.
  Republicans have no plan to cover the American people. Speaker 
Boehner earlier this week would not commit to releasing a Republican 
plan until after the election. How transparent can you be? Proof that 
this is political.
  So the introduction of this bill is simply surrender in the face of 
the health care crisis in America. How else can you explain the 
Republicans' introduction of a bill that cancels the health insurance 
policies of 1 million Americans? That sounds like surrender to me.
  How else can you explain a bill that raises the deficit by $75 
billion? More surrender.
  How else can you explain a bill that puts five times the number of 
American workers at risk of losing hours at work? How else do you 
explain a bill that does anything but dare employers to slash work 
hours for workers in order to avoid the responsibility to offer health 
insurance coverage?
  How can they say this bill solves a problem of employers cutting 
hours and refusing benefits when it really only makes it worse?
  It is unconditional surrender by the Republicans, pure and simple, to 
force yet another vote on a bill that has no chance of becoming law. 
There isn't one chance in a million.
  One thing I learned in medicine was you never say never, but this is 
one time I can say it. It will never, ever pass the Congress. It is a 
bill crafted purely to appeal to the Koch brothers and the producers of 
FOX News, rather than forged to protect honest Americans like Ingrid.
  The latest Republican bill also denies a confirmed truth; the ACA is 
succeeding in its primary mission to expand access to quality health 
care for each and every American.
  So make no mistake. I have got news for you. The ACA is not going 
away. It is not going away. It is here to stay.
  The mission before the Congress now should be--in fact, must be--to 
move forward to further implement the ACA and to improve the law, where 
needed.
  I talked to Bill Frist about a year ago, former Republican leader of 
the Senate. He said: Don't repeal; fix.
  That is what we ought to be about doing--but we are not doing that--
in order to guarantee not just access for each and every American, but 
to lower health care costs across the board; yet this rather perverse 
bill raises health care costs for everyone by increasing the number of 
uninsured. That is surrender, pure and simple surrender.
  It is surrendering to an idea that our Nation is no longer capable of 
accomplishing great things and surrendering to the idea that America, 
the richest and the most advanced country on the Earth, can't guarantee 
that its citizens won't lose their homes when they get sick. That is 
what you are admitting by this bill.
  You are saying they have to choose between food on the breakfast 
table instead of medicine on their bedside table. That, in my view, is 
a situation that has no explanation, other than the fact that you have 
surrendered. You have given up the idea that America can take care of 
its own people.
  It was a choice that Ingrid once had to make, but she will never have 
to make again. That is what is true about the ACA. She has health care 
coverage. That is what is right about the ACA, and this bill under 
consideration, H.R. 2575, has nothing to do with what is either true or 
right.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is instructive to think about what this 
bill does in the context of the ACA.
  ObamaCare defines full time as 30 hours. That doesn't surprise me 
coming from this administration; but we all know that just because 
Washington says it is so, doesn't make it so.

                              {time}  1245

  Thirty hours isn't full time. When we asked some experts who 
testified in Ways and Means, they had no idea where the 30 hours came 
from. They surmised that people were sitting around at the White House 
and just said 30 is a good number. They could have said 20. How about 
10? How about 1 hour a week is full time?
  If we tried to change it, and it was 1 hour, of course people that 
had insurance would have their situation changed. But this is about 
what is full time and what isn't.
  The French consider 35 hours full time. Can we not at least agree 
that in this country 40 hours used to be full time?
  That is the issue.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Illinois (Mr. 
Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, we are here yet again 
talking about another failed aspect of ObamaCare. It is simply 
unacceptable that a law meant to improve our health care system has not 
only failed to do that, it has actually become a job killer for this 
country.
  The need to change the 30-hour workweek is personal.
  My dad started out working at a local McDonald's as an hourly 
employee and eventually worked his way up to become a franchise owner. 
Not only did my dad teach me that anyone could achieve the American 
Dream if

[[Page H2863]]

they just worked hard enough, but he also taught me that policies, 
policies passed right here in this Chamber, have real-life 
consequences.
  If this provision is not fixed, workers are going to see fewer hours, 
which means they are going to see smaller paychecks. Studies show that 
there could be upwards of 2 million less full-time workers by 2017 and 
the potential to short workers out of $75 billion in wages.
  Supporters of ObamaCare want the American people to believe that we 
are just wasting our time talking about changing ObamaCare and that we 
should just simply move on. I want folks in the 13th District of 
Illinois to know I will not move on. I will not quit talking about the 
complete failure of ObamaCare, and I will continue to advocate for 
commonsense fixes to this disastrous bill which will protect 
hardworking Americans in my district.
  I also want to point out, you are going to hear a lot of discussion 
from the other side of the aisle that this will take hardworking 
Americans off of employer-based insurance. I want to remind my 
colleagues that the architect of ObamaCare, Zeke Emanuel, it was 
reported just a few weeks ago that he expected that the private 
insurance-based health care system, coverage system, would be gone by 
the year 2025. Well, that means the employer-based health care system 
will be gone by the year 2025.
  He also said he expects 1,000 hospitals to close. I ask my 
colleagues, which hospitals, especially those like in my small town of 
Taylorville, Illinois, which is our largest employer? Which hospitals 
will close?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, last night in the House Budget 
Committee, we had a big debate, and at the end of the debate, we voted 
on the House Republican budget.
  During that debate, there was a lot of talk about how we can reduce 
our long-term deficits. Our Republican colleagues in their budget said 
they didn't want to close one special interest tax break to help reduce 
our long-term deficit. They would rather cut the budget that helps 
provide for our kids' education. They wanted to reopen, in their 
budget, the doughnut hole so seniors with high prescription drug costs 
will pay $1,200 more per year.
  So they were willing to do all that, but they wouldn't close a single 
tax loophole. But they said they cared about reducing the deficit. Now, 
lo and behold, we have a bill on the floor of the House that, in one 
fell swoop, if it is voted on, will increase the deficit by $74 
billion.
  Republicans have a rule that they put into the rules of the House 
that says you can't do that. You shouldn't be increasing the deficit. 
There should be some offset. You should cut somewhere else. We think 
you should also be able to cut some tax expenditures for very special 
interests. But the idea is that we shouldn't be doing things that 
increase the deficit. But those rules were waived for this, a little 
special wand in the Rules Committee: we are not going to abide by the 
rules, and so $79 billion increase to the deficit.
  Now, here is the really interesting thing. We had a debate last night 
in the Budget Committee about the Affordable Care Act. We made the 
point that the Republican claim that their budget is balanced in year 
10 is totally inconsistent with the claim that they want to get rid of 
the Affordable Care Act, and here is why:
  In the Republican budget--and we all hope it will come to the floor 
next Thursday. In the Republican budget, they get rid of all the 
benefits for people in the Affordable Care Act. Right? They get rid of 
the tax credits that help more Americans purchase insurance. They get 
rid of the provision that says you can keep your child on your 
insurance policy until age 26. They get rid of that. But you keep very 
important parts of the Affordable Care Act. You keep all the revenues, 
$1 trillion in revenues. And you know what else you keep? You keep all 
the Medicare savings. In fact, you have $2 trillion embedded in the 
Affordable Care Act in your budget from the Affordable Care Act.
  Today is the smoking gun, because if you pass this bill, the budget 
that was claimed to be balanced yesterday in the Budget Committee is no 
longer in balance. You know why? You claimed that in year 10, under 
your budget, in year 10, that you would have a surplus of $5 billion. 
But that's not true, because you can't at the same time claim with a 
straight face that you are getting rid of the Affordable Care Act 
because the Affordable Care Act provides, as I said, $2 trillion in 
your own budget.
  In that year 10, when you pass this, $9 billion disappears from the 
Treasury in year 10. So today, by your own accounting, the budget that 
Republicans claimed to be balanced last night in the Budget Committee 
today will already be unbalanced, and that is just getting rid of a 
little piece of the Affordable Care Act. If you get rid of all of it, 
then you get rid of all the revenues that are in your budget, and you 
get rid of the savings in your budget, and your budget will not 
possibly balance.
  So, Madam Speaker, it is a fraud to claim that the Republican budget 
balances and, at the same time, for Republicans to say they are in 
favor of getting rid of all of the Affordable Care Act. Both things 
cannot be true at the same time.
  So either Republicans level with the American people that their 
budget is not in balance--and starting today, it won't be, by their own 
terms--or they acknowledge to the American people that they have gotten 
rid of all the good stuff in the Affordable Care Act, the stuff that 
helps people afford health care, but they kept all the savings.
  So the moment of truth is today. The smoking gun is today. We had 
this big debate. I hope the Budget Committee members on the Republican 
side will come down here and fess up.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
and, also, Mr. Young for his authorship of this bill.
  It changed dramatically what I had to say when I came down here when 
I heard that the Republican endeavor to reestablish the 40-hour 
workweek, which is a practical thing that is good for people, is a 
fraud. A fraud? People that have been the advocates for ObamaCare are 
using the word ``fraud''?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Will the gentleman yield, because that is not what I 
said was the fraud.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. No, I won't yield. I heard what the gentleman had 
to say.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland will suspend. 
The gentleman from Iowa will suspend.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I ask for a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland may state his 
point of order.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, what recourse, if any, do I have when 
the gentleman misstated my point totally?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not provide an advisory 
opinion.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, if the gentleman would yield, we could clarify 
it, but apparently he won't.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not yielded.
  The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I 
might have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa has 1 minute and 25 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, the gentleman used the term 
``fraud.''
  It is ironic that ObamaCare itself has been so misrepresented to the 
American people that, for the top three things that were stated by 
those who advocated for ObamaCare--if you like your policy, you can 
keep it; if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, and, by the 
way, we are going to save these families $2,500 a year. There is not a 
single family in America that that promise has been kept for, and yet I 
hear the word ``fraud'' from the other side of the aisle.
  It is not very far down to Mount Vernon where, at least by legend, it 
is alleged that George Washington was asked who chopped down the cherry 
tree. He said: I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree.

[[Page H2864]]

  Well, calling the Affordable Care Act the ``Affordable Care Act'' is 
not true. George Washington could not utter these words. He might be 
able to say the ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,'' because 
that is technically the name for it, but to utter those words and try 
to tell the American people it is affordable by anybody is not true, 
and I don't think George Washington could state that.
  So we are watching here as people have jobs where they get paid 
overtime, 56 hours a week, 45 hours a week. They are getting paid time-
and-a-half over 40 hours because that is the standard workweek, and now 
we see ObamaCare dropped it down to 30.
  Employers did the rational thing, and we are hearing that that gap 
between 30 and 40 cancels insurance policies. It doesn't cancel any 
insurance policies. Instead, it gives people an opportunity to work, 
work longer, earn overtime, and for the employers and the employees to 
keep their contract with each other.
  I strongly support this bill, H.R. 2575.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).
  Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2575, the Save 
American Workers Act.
  Simply put, this bill just reestablishes what most Americans think is 
full-time work--40 hours. It is what I grew up knowing. It was what my 
parents and grandparents grew up knowing.
  Interestingly, we have been talking a lot about jobs here in America. 
The President continues to call on Congress to pass more jobs 
legislation. Well, let's look at jobs in his home State, where I hail 
from in Illinois.
  The Illinois Policy Institute, since 2011, says that Illinois has 
lost 66,000 jobs just in retail, food, and beverage since 2011. 
Ironically, that is more job loss than job gains--jobs added--in every 
sector in the President's home State. His unemployment in his home 
State in Illinois stands at 8.7 percent, a full 2 percentage points 
higher than the national average. And among young people and 
minorities, it is even worse. Among African American men, the rate of 
unemployment is 19.6 percent; among Hispanics, over 11 percent; and 
among young men and women, young people, ambitious people, a whopping 
30 percent rate of unemployment.
  Six years since the economy tanked, 5 years into the Obama 
administration, 4 years after ObamaCare has become law, this is what we 
are left with.
  Now, I recently met with a manufacturer in Quincy, Illinois, who had 
me meeting with several hundred of his employers--Knapheide 
Manufacturing, people that they like, people who are doing a good job, 
people who are getting paid a fair wage, people who like their job, but 
people whose jobs are being cut back by 25 percent because of the 
Affordable Care Act. In true dollars and cents, this is about $330 a 
month that they are losing in take-home pay. Now, to put this in 
perspective, every time the President gets on Air Force One, it costs 
about 500 times that amount for every hour on Air Force One.
  I would suggest the best jobs bill that Congress can pass is a jobs 
bill that insures people who have a job and like it can keep it, and 
that is what this jobs bill does.
  I urge passage.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  A little history might be helpful here. There was a time in this 
country where people worked 60 hours a week, 7 days a week, 6 days a 
week. The only reason we have a 40-hour week at all were labor unions 
who went out and struck and forced the process to get a 40-hour 
workweek.

                              {time}  1300

  They also were the ones who created the health care system in this 
country after the Second World War. People didn't have health insurance 
prior to that. When the President said, we can't have an increase in 
wages, that we can't have an increase in benefits, that prices can't go 
up, the labor unions said, well, let's have something called a benefits 
package.
  The benefits package that was created in the middle forties included 
health care and pensions. It came from the union movement. They are the 
ones that stood in the rain and the sleet and the snow on the picket 
lines to get these changes.
  Now, we have a law that comes in and says, let's deal with everybody 
in this country, and the judgment of this Congress was that an employer 
had the responsibility to provide health insurance for his or her 
employees if they worked 30 hours a week. That was considered full 
time.
  It doesn't change the other laws, the labor laws or any of the other 
things. It is for the purpose of this act that employers must consider 
their people full time if they work 30 hours.
  Now, if employers don't care, if they say, well, let me figure out 
how I can cheat my people out of any benefits, I am going to drop them 
down to 29 hours--well, you know, there are people like that. But the 
law says, if do you that, then you have to pay a penalty for everybody 
you didn't cover.
  So we tried in every way possible to make it possible to give people 
flexibility. But this law will not work, according to the American 
Enterprise Institute, without a mandate that everybody be covered.
  We are not changing the labor law. We are not changing overtime 
rules. We are not changing any of that stuff. We are saying, for the 
purpose of this law, an employer must cover anybody who works 30 hours. 
And if they don't care about their employees, if they run a restaurant, 
and they don't want their employees to be healthy, knock them all down 
to 29 hours, and let them come in sick. Then you have got a restaurant 
where you are going to eat lunch, and the employees haven't been able 
to see a doctor. That is what you are asking for.
  We are saying everybody in this country ought to have health 
insurance, and they ought to have the access to go to a doctor when 
they need it. So this business about we are somehow destroying the work 
ethic in this country and all that kind of nonsense is simply nonsense. 
That is not what this is about. This is about another way to destroy 
the act. And you know it. We know it. And the world should understand 
that this is the 52nd attempt to repeal the law, to undermine it so it 
will not work. I urge people to vote ``no.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation 
today, the Save American Workers Act.
  Let's face it. The health care law has redefined what it means to be 
a full-time worker in this country. Notwithstanding the comments of my 
colleague from Washington, I must disagree with what he has been saying 
about it.
  This bill does not in any way repeal the health care law. What it 
does do, it amends the law. It does not end it. Many of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle have said, ``Amend it; don't end it.'' 
This amends it. Let's be very clear about that.
  In my district, let me tell you who is affected by this. Cafeteria 
workers who work in school districts, like East Penn School District or 
the Southern Lehigh School District, they are getting their hours 
reduced below 30.
  I have a major national employer who just opened a major distribution 
facility in my district with over 500 employees. They have over 50,000 
people nationwide. More than half of their employees are part time. 
Many of those are being reduced below 30 hours per week as a result of 
this law.
  This is a targeted fix. We know that these hourly workers are going 
to see wage reductions up to 25 percent as a direct result of the law. 
There are consequences to this law.
  It is not about some employers wanting to cheat their employees, 
quite frankly. It is about many employers not being able to afford the 
people they have. If they don't reduce their hours, many will be laid 
off. They will have no wages at all. That is the worst of all worlds. 
But that is a real consequence of this particular law. We are all 
hearing it in our districts.
  And, by the way, we should point out one other thing too. The folks 
who are most directly impacted by this particular provision of the 
health care law

[[Page H2865]]

are the young, are women. They are the ones who are more likely to be 
affected by this. There is no question about that. And I think we 
should be clear on those who are most directly impacted.
  There was a Hoover Institution study that pointed that out, that the 
young, women, and those without a college education are the most likely 
to be impacted by the loss of hours, loss of wages. That means less 
money in their pockets.
  We are having a debate about the minimum wage over in the Senate 
right now. Well, why don't we talk about letting people work, letting 
them work more hours than what this law allows them to.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Save American Workers Act.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his 
leadership on this important issue.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Save American Workers 
Act. This important bill will restore the traditional 40-hour 
definition of full-time employment as it relates to the President's 
health care law.
  Under the Affordable Care Act, the 30-hour rule has resulted in fewer 
jobs and has reduced working hours for Virginians and for Americans, 
putting 2.6 million workers with a median income of under $30,000 at 
risk of losing their jobs and losing their working hours.
  In Virginia's Fifth District, we have heard from many constituents 
who have seen their hours cut due to this 30-hour rule. When hours are 
cut and wages are cut, the American people suffer. I urge my colleagues 
to support this important bill so that America can get back to work.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), my friend, and I ask unanimous 
consent that she control the remainder of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JENKINS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Indiana, 
Congressman Young, for introducing this important legislation and 
Chairman Camp for making it a top priority.
  We have heard from employees and employers alike about the negative 
consequences of the employer mandate penalty. More specifically, we 
have heard firsthand that defining a full-time employee as one who 
works no more than 30 hours per week hurts the ability of employers to 
hire workers and grow their businesses, and it hurts the efforts of 
low-wage workers trying to enter the middle class.

  Even though the President has unilaterally delayed the employer 
mandate twice, employers are already reacting to the employer mandate 
by reducing their employee hours. I spoke with one business owner in my 
district this week who told me that although he will not reduce the 
hours of current employees, he has not hired a single employee for more 
than 30 hours of work per week in over a year. Additionally, he told me 
that the number of his employees working 40 hours per week has 
naturally declined by 25 percent and that he will continue to replace 
these full-time employees with part-time employees.
  It is also concerning that the employer mandate penalty is 
disproportionately affecting Americans who can least afford it--women, 
young people, and low-wage earners. A study done by the Hoover 
Institution concluded that Americans most at risk of having their hours 
reduced are the 2.6 million Americans who currently work over 30 hours 
but have an income slightly above poverty level. Madam Speaker, 1.64 
million of these folks are women and another 1.56 million are young 
people.
  I am proud to support this legislation to restore certainty to our 
employers and opportunity to employees by defining a full-time workweek 
as 40 hours.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                        Society for Human Resource Management,

                                    Alexandria, VA, April 2, 2014.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Society for Human 
     Resource Management (SHRM) and our 275,000 members, I urge 
     you to support the ``Save American Workers Act'' (H.R. 2575) 
     when it is brought to the House floor for a vote tomorrow, 
     Thursday, April 3. Specifically, H.R. 2575 would amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code to modify the definition of a full-time 
     employee from 30 hours to 40 hours of service per week for 
     purposes of the employer mandate, which requires employers to 
     provide health care coverage for their employees under the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
       As you may know, SHRM is the world's largest HR membership 
     organization devoted to human resource management. SHRM 
     members implement critical workplace policies every day. To 
     that end, employers are encountering difficulties 
     implementing the new PPACA requirements. Specifically, 
     defining ``full-time'' as an employee working 30 hours a week 
     is inconsistent with standard employment practices and 
     benefits coverage requirements in the U.S. and conflicts with 
     other federal laws. Some employers have opted to eliminate 
     health care coverage for part-time employees, while others 
     have re-engineered their staffing models to reduce employee 
     work hours below the 30-hour threshold that triggers the 
     coverage requirements. According to a recent CBO report, the 
     U.S. economy will have the equivalent of 2.3 million fewer 
     full-time workers by 2021 as a result of the PPACA--nearly 
     three times previous estimates. The Save American Workers Act 
     restores a common understanding in America, spanning over 
     half a century, of what constitutes full-time work.
       SHRM and its members believe that effective health care 
     reform should expand access to coverage, while not inhibiting 
     or altering employer business models. The PPACA's definition 
     of full-time as 30 hours of service per week severely 
     restricts an employer's flexibility to offer a benefits 
     package that best meets the needs of their employees.
       I strongly urge you and your colleagues in the House of 
     Representatives to vote in favor of the Save American Workers 
     Act. If you have any additional questions about how amending 
     the definition of a full-time employee would impact workplace 
     operations please do not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,


                                                  Mike Aitken,

                             Vice President of Government Affairs.

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I understand my friend and colleague from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen) was on the floor talking about the disingenuous 
approach here and the discontinuity between what we are talking about 
today and what we did yesterday in the Budget Committee.
  It is an unusual approach to public policy. Where there is a claim 
that they are, under their budget, if they are able to enact it, going 
to completely eliminate the Affordable Care Act, but they are going to 
keep all of the taxes, and they are going to keep the adjustment to the 
Medicare Advantage Program that was such a focal point in their 
campaign attacks last year. It was bad when Democrats did it with the 
Affordable Care Act, but they are going to keep all of those changes.
  Last week, we had, by a legislative sleight of hand, a short-term fix 
for the sustainable growth rate. Now, that is the adjustment that is 
made on an ongoing basis on physician reimbursement under Medicare that 
has gotten wildly out of whack. It was something that I voted against 
when it was first enacted. It is an annual charade that goes on here, 
where we force people in the medical space to come to Washington, D.C., 
to plead against draconian cuts.
  We actually had been working in the Ways and Means Committee and the 
Commerce Committee on a bipartisan approach that would actually solve 
this problem permanently. Then last week, we had an approach that was 
advanced on the floor of the House by our friends from the majority 
side that turned its back on the carefully negotiated bipartisan 
solution that we were close to being able to move forward and patched 
together another 1-year extension that was going to continue this abuse 
of people in the medical space, having the threat of dramatic cuts 
hanging over them.
  And what happened? We had a vigorous debate on the floor of the 
House, where it was pretty clear that this was not going to pass, where 
we had the medical association and a number of medical professions just 
opposed to the so-called ``doc fix'' because of the way that it was 
being done, because of the short-term expedience, because cherry-

[[Page H2866]]

picking items that were going to make a long-term solution even harder 
and subject them to that same treatment.
  It was clear to a number of us that it was very questionable whether 
that would pass. It looked like there would be enough votes to defeat 
it on the suspension calendar, which would require two-thirds of us to 
vote in favor of it and is reserved for noncontroversial issues, but 
this certainly no longer was noncontroversial.
  And what happened? The Republican leadership put somebody in the 
Chair. They went ahead and effectively orchestrated a voice vote that 
nobody knew was coming. I know that there are Republicans that were 
outraged about that treatment.
  And now, what are we looking at today? We are looking at another 
effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act. We have people talking 
about problems with changing the definition of ``part-time 
employment,'' of people having their working conditions changed for 
something that--excuse me--is not going to be enforced for larger firms 
until 2016 and for smaller firms until 2017.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. So they are conjuring up a problem here that--maybe 
people will use it as an excuse for things that they want to do. But 
nobody is forced to do this at this point. It is not going to take 
effect for years.
  Their proposed solution to probably a nonexistent problem is to blow 
another hole in the budget of over $70 billion. And, oh, this isn't 
paid for. It was a requirement to pay for the doc fix. But this little 
maneuver, $70 billion worth, isn't paid for.

                              {time}  1315

  The hypocrisy and the double-dealing here really frustrates me more 
than I can explain. If we would be able to deal with things in a 
straightforward fashion, let people know what they are voting on, and 
try and solve real problems rather than trying to undermine the 
Affordable Care Act, we would all be a lot better off.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black), my friend and colleague on the House Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Speaker, I would like to say thank you to my 
colleague from Kansas for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, ObamaCare's arbitrary 30-hour, full-time workweek puts 
about 2.6 million American workers making under $35,000 a year at risk 
of having their hours and wages cut. And 63 percent of those adversely 
affected by this arbitrary, 30-hour rule are female workers, according 
to the Hoover Institution.
  It is no wonder that a majority of Americans oppose this law--and 
certainly no wonder that a majority of women oppose it. For all the 
talk about the supposed ``war on women,'' it is ObamaCare that is 
waging a war against female workers. That is why I am proud to stand in 
support of women across this country to repeal this arbitrary, 30-hour, 
full-time workweek.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, first the facts--not the facts from this side of the 
aisle, not the facts from the other party, but the facts that we get 
from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which is in charge of 
telling all of us--Congress and the rest of the country--what does 
legislation that is proposed by Democrats and Republicans actually 
cost, and what will it actually do. They are the nonpartisan referee 
that we are supposed to rely on to sort of give us the facts without 
getting into these political battles.
  What do the folks at the Congressional Budget Office say about this 
bill? One, it will increase the deficit by $75 billion; two, around a 
million American workers will lose their health insurance coverage that 
they get through their employer today; and three, around five times as 
many workers in America will be at risk of losing hours at work as a 
result of this bill should it become law. Okay, so those are the facts 
not from Republicans, not from Democrats, but from the nonpartisan CBO.
  So let's now talk a little bit about those facts a bit more, because 
I think a lot of folks are very confused. What the heck is going on? We 
are going to lose hours at work? We are going to gain? What is going 
on? Essentially it is this. We have got to figure out how we make sure 
that employers who currently offer health insurance to their employees 
don't say, hey, I don't want to do it anymore, so I am going to stop 
offering it. How can I do that? I can make sure I keep my employees 
employed for less hours than is required by the law.
  This bill says if you have that threshold that the number of hours 
you have to work is 30, well, a whole bunch of employers are going to 
say, hey, I can game the system if I drop the number of hours my 
employee works at the job to less than 30. That is true.
  The problem is this. The vast majority of Americans don't work 31 
hours, 32 hours a week. They work 40. A lot of Americans, in fact, work 
42, 44. They work overtime. So what the Affordable Care Act did was 
made sure that most employers who currently offer employer-covered 
insurance to their employees continue to do it because very few 
employers are going to say, I can game the system by dropping my 40-
hour worker to 29 hours. That is 11 quality hours, unless you were just 
letting these folks just sit on a couch.
  What happens if you raise the number of work hours to qualify for the 
affordable care coverage to 40 hours? Well, that is why the CBO says 
about 1 million Americans will lose their insurance coverage, because 
if you are working a 40-hour workweek, an employer would say, gosh, it 
would be tough for me to drop you to 29 hours, it would be a lot easier 
to say, I will drop you to 39\1/2\ hours, in which case I no longer 
have to offer you insurance.
  That is why the Congressional Budget Office said that over 1 million 
Americans would lose their health insurance coverage and why it would 
cost about $75 billion to do this legislation, because guess what? If 
the employers are no longer offering you insurance and you still have 
to go to the doctor for your child and you can't afford it anymore 
because you don't have insurance, guess who gets to pay? The folks up 
there in the audience in the gallery and those of us here who pay 
taxes, because guess what? They will go to the emergency room, and now 
they will use the Medicaid program to help cover that bill they can no 
longer afford because the employer cut them back a little bit.
  If we all really want to make sure Americans get to work, then let's 
separate the myth from the fact. Remember 4 years ago death panels? If 
the Affordable Care Act, this new health security law, takes effect, 
death panels are going to decide if your grandmother gets to live. How 
many death panels have you heard that have told your family member he 
or she will have to die? Okay, I ask anyone in this audience, do you 
have a doctor? Do you have insurance? Do you know your doctor? Ask 
yourself this question: What is the name of your government doctor? You 
have a doctor. Did you know your doctor works for the government? You 
are going to say, no, I have known my doctor for a long time. He or she 
doesn't work directly for the government. If you believe the myth, yes, 
your doctor does because, remember, this was a government takeover of 
health care. It was a myth.
  In fact, this Affordable Care Act's law requires you to use private 
health insurance coverage to get your health care through private 
doctors and private hospitals. But what it does is it requires you to 
do it, and it requires employers to do it, as well. That is what the 
law did. It didn't say, you are going to go to a government doctor or a 
government hospital.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman.
  So once you separate the facts from the myth, it becomes pretty clear 
what we have to do. We have to make sure if you are an American we 
reward you for your work. If you are an American and you get health 
insurance through your employer, we don't want your employer to game 
the system and put the burden on you now. And so what we

[[Page H2867]]

want is to make it affordable for the employee and affordable for the 
employer.
  This bill makes it unaffordable for the employee moving forward, and 
it makes it, quite honestly, for the employer, as well, because you are 
losing your good workers. We need to defeat this bill and try to make 
the Affordable Care Act work for everyone.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to refer to 
occupants of the gallery.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to our 
colleague from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentlelady for yielding the 
time.
  Madam Speaker, helping those without health insurance to get coverage 
certainly is a very noble goal, but the method that was used to achieve 
it under ObamaCare has just done so much more harm than good. And a 
very vivid example of this is a provision that you are talking about 
today that requires employers to provide health insurance for any 
employee that works 30 hours or more a week. Their thinking must have 
been that more part-time workers would receive employer-sponsored care 
and that employers would not change their behavior and, simply, they 
would absorb these new costs.

  Well, I guess when you think like the government, maybe you would 
think that you are unconcerned about costs and you are unconcerned 
about balancing your books, and so that thinking sort of makes sense. 
But in the real world, it just does not work. Employers need to live in 
the real world. They are in business to make money, and they have to 
balance their books. And these very onerous provisions of ObamaCare 
make it very, very difficult for them to continue with business as 
usual, to comply with the law and to stay in business. So employers 
have been forced to cut workers' hours.
  We also need to look for a moment, Madam Speaker, at those who have 
been most negatively impacted by ObamaCare and this particular 
provision of it. According to a study done by the Hoover Institution, 
the 30-hour rule puts 2.6 million workers with a median income of under 
$30,000 a year at risk of losing their job or having their hours cut. 
And guess what? Eighty-nine percent of the impacted workers do not have 
a college degree, 59 percent are between the ages of 19 and 34, and 63 
percent of these workers that are so negatively impacted are women, 
Madam Speaker.
  So this rule impacts the most vulnerable in our economy who are just 
starting to make their way in the world or who are working hard to 
support their families. And do you know I didn't need a study to 
actually tell me that because I am hearing it directly each and every 
day from those whom I am so proud to serve.
  I will just give you one example--a vivid example--of many, many that 
we got, especially women who have contacted my office. This is from a 
mother named Tracy in Macomb County, Michigan, who said:

       My daughter who is a single mom and struggles to make ends 
     meet has had her hours at work cut by over 50 hours a month 
     so that her company doesn't have to provide her with health 
     care. So she is now looking for a second job, which means 
     less hours for her and less time, of course, that she is able 
     to spend with her children.

  Madam Speaker, being a single mom is tough--it is really tough, and 
what we do here in Washington shouldn't make it tougher. Being a small 
business owner and a job creator is tough. Again, what we do here in 
Washington shouldn't make it tougher. The 40-hour workweek has been the 
bedrock of our economy for decades, and workers and families have come 
to depend on it--that is, of course, until ObamaCare changed the rules.
  It is time for us to correct this mistake and repeal this terrible 
provision.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller), my good friend.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 2575. The majority's obsession 
with attacking the Affordable Care Act is unprecedented, and they have 
never let the truth stand in their way. Today's bill is no exception. 
Let's call this bill for what it really is. It is a big favor to 
millionaires and billionaires at the expense of working families.
  This legislation is perfect for the owners and CEOs of big, low-wage 
companies like Walmart and McDonald's. It says that you can have your 
employees work 30, 35, 39 hours a week without providing one iota of 
health care coverage. That is a great deal for the Walton family, which 
already has a net worth of nearly $145 billion--one family, $145 
billion. And that is a great deal for the CEO of McDonald's, who makes 
$9,200 an hour.
  But it is a terrible deal for America's workers. It means that not a 
penny of the revenues from these hugely profitable companies will go 
toward supporting health insurance for the bulk of their workers. All 
the while those employees continue to make as little is $7.25 an hour, 
and it means that the American taxpayers will be stuck with picking up 
the tab.
  The Republicans have decided to bring this bill to the floor even 
though they have no pay-for, which means that this is a very pure form 
of deficit spending. You are incurring $75 billion worth of expenses 
for the taxpayers, and you have no way to pay for it. But rather than 
have these companies provide health insurance to their workers, you are 
willing to add it to the deficit of the United States for the next 40 
or 50 years.
  I remember when that party stood for deficit reduction. Now it is 
deficit creation. It is deficit creation. So let's get it straight so 
everyone can understand: The American people will be paying $75 billion 
more so that the likes of Walmart don't have to provide their employees 
with health care. Walmart made $16 billion in profits last year. Target 
made $2 billion in profits. McDonald's made more than $5 billion in 
profits. And they can't afford to provide hourly employees with health 
care? Give me a break.
  And all of this to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Because let's 
be clear: there is nothing in the Affordable Care Act that forces an 
employer to cut workers' hours. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office stated:

       There is no compelling evidence that part-time employment 
     has increased as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

  So, to benefit the richest of the rich, the Republicans want to pass 
this bill. The very week that we learned that more than 10 million 
people have gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act, the 
Republicans want to strip a million people of their employer-based 
health coverage, tossing them into government programs and leaving the 
rest uninsured, and having the taxpayers pick up the bill.
  And this is all while the Republicans continue to block a minimum-
wage increase for these very same workers--a minimum-wage increase that 
Goldman Sachs says will give the economy ``a bigger than usual'' boost. 
But they are not going to vote for the minimum-wage increase, is what 
they tell us. So what are they going to do instead? They are going to 
continue to stand on the throat of the American economy because all 
over this country where we have raised the minimum wage in cities, 
States, and towns, small businesses are hiring. There are more 
customers on Main Street.

                              {time}  1330

  But they are not going to allow that to happen nationwide. Instead, 
they are going to provide $75 billion of new deficits for these 
businesses who pay their taxes, for these workers who pay their taxes.
  Then they will continue to block unemployment insurance, another 
boost to the economy. People with unemployment insurance that has run 
out--and if we extend it--they will spend that money immediately 
because they have to take care of their families and they have to pay 
their rent, these are customers on Main Street; but Republicans are not 
going to do that.
  Economists left and right tell us one of the biggest boosts to the 
American economy is immigration reform, but they are not going to do 
that. They are not going to give our economy that boost, but they are 
going to add $75 billion to the deficit, but they are not going to let 
somebody have food stamps for the deficit.
  They are not going to let somebody have health care for the deficit, 
but

[[Page H2868]]

they are going to reward the big employers for throwing people off 
their health care rolls.
  This is some plan you have for America. This is some plan you have 
for working families. Clearly, when the newspapers and the editorial 
boards accuse you of doing nothing in Washington, they misread you.
  You are doing great harm to the budget, you are doing great harm to 
health care, and you are doing great harm to these low-income workers; 
but you are doing a great favor for the richest of the rich in this 
country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
commonsense proposal to change the Affordable Care Act definition of 
full-time employment back to 40 hours per week, where it belongs.
  The 40-hour workweek has been recognized for decades as the standard 
for full-time employment. Small business owners, union leaders, and 
individual workers have recognized that the ACA's definition of full-
time employment risks damaging the traditional 40-hour workweek and the 
paychecks that those 40 hours bring.
  As we have heard with the Hoover Institution study, the 30-hour rule 
puts 2.6 million workers at risk of losing their jobs or losing their 
work hours, harming those who can least afford to take a pay cut.
  Those workers have a median income of $30,000. More than half of them 
have a high school diploma or less, and more than half of them are 
women. In practice, many of these workers will have to find two part-
time jobs to equal what they were bringing home.
  Balancing two jobs means less time with your family, not to mention 
the tremendous stress that folks who will have to go in this direction 
will feel.
  Passing this bill will help create jobs. One-half of small businesses 
recently surveyed said they will either cut hours for full-time 
employees or replace them with part-time employees.
  We need to make it easier for businesses to hire full-time employees, 
not harder, but the ACA's mandate and the administration's repeated 
delays have only created more uncertainty for businesses and moms 
throughout this country.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in helping working families and 
working women and job-creating small businesses by voting for the Save 
American Workers Act.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time; but 
could you give us an accounting of our time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 19\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Kansas has 30\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I am so appreciative of the 
opportunity for us to be able to come to the floor and have this 
discussion today. I think our constituents are just shocked with what 
they see happening because of the President's health care law. They 
can't believe it.
  They had heard the rhetoric from the minority leader that it was 
going to create 4 million jobs. What they have found out is that it is 
costing them their jobs. It is costing them wage increases. It is 
costing them certainty in the job market.
  I have to tell you, it really is a war on jobs. It is a war on women, 
and we are seeing that because women--63 percent of those affected by 
the adverse impact of the President's health care law are women.
  Let me give you one example of this. I was in the grocery store 
recently. I passed a lady with two children in her grocery cart, and we 
chatted, nodded at each other.
  The next time around, the next aisle, she said: Are you Marsha 
Blackburn? I said: Yes, I am. She asked: Can I tell you my story? I 
said: Absolutely.
  This is her story: She worked in the office park where this grocery 
store was located. Her husband is self-employed. The family's benefit 
structure, insurance, was through her job, an employer with just over 
50 people.
  Her hours as an office manager and assistant were cut to 29 hours a 
week. Her time was cut. Every week impacts her, impacts her husband. In 
one day, she lost her insurance, she lost her wage increases, and she 
was forced to healthcare.gov.
  Also, what she had to do--she is a survivor. She said: I went to the 
mall, and I went to a retailer and got a part-time job. She said: Thank 
goodness I have great in-laws. They are going to help watch the 
children.
  Here is what is so sad: She now is working two jobs, and she is 
losing time to be with those children as they are playing soccer and 
baseball, as they are doing Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, as they are 
trying to get to church to sing in the choir.
  She has had to rely on her in-laws to handle those, so that she can 
work a second job to pay for a program that she doesn't want and pay 
her taxes to a government that refuses to live within its means. I 
support the SAW Act.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.
  Madam Speaker, throughout this debate, Republicans have been claiming 
that they are champions of working people, but that is not the case 
here. This is not the Save American Workers Act; it is the Sabotaging 
American Workers Act.
  The Affordable Care Act is based on the premise that the large 
businesses can afford to offer health coverage to their workers, and 
they should do the responsible thing and offer coverage. That is only 
fair.
  Ninety-six percent of all businesses don't have to offer any of their 
workers coverage under the ACA, but for the 4 percent of businesses 
that have the means, the law says they need to do the right thing by 
their full-time workers and offer them health coverage.
  Republicans don't think businesses owe their employees anything at 
all. The Family and Medical Leave Act, Republicans say: that is not 
important. Equal pay for equal work, Republicans say: women don't 
deserve that. A fair minimum wage, Republicans say: absolutely not. And 
quality, affordable health care, Republicans say: Who cares?

  Well, I think bigger businesses should do the right thing by their 
workers, and that is what the ACA asks them to do.
  So what does this bill that is before us today actually do? This bill 
says big businesses could deny health coverage to someone working 39 
hours a week, 52 weeks a year. That is not a part-time worker. Their 
employer should provide them health coverage.
  Five times more people work around 40 hours a week than work around 
30 hours a week. That is why this bill will throw 1 million Americans 
off of their employer's health coverage. That is why it would result in 
millions and millions of workers seeing their hours cut below 40 hours 
a week.
  What is it--why are Republicans claiming people are losing hours 
right and left because of the ACA? But the Congressional Budget Office 
told them flatly, ``There is no compelling evidence that part-time 
labor has increased as a result of the Affordable Care Act.''
  But I doubt that means much to my Republican friends because they do 
not look at the facts. We have added 8.6 million private sector jobs 
since the law passed, but Republicans simply ignore that. There are 
fewer part-time workers than there were before the law passed, but that 
doesn't get in the way of the Republican talking points.
  Madam Speaker, 7.1 million people have enrolled through the 
exchanges. Millions and millions more have signed up through Medicaid 
or directly with an insurer, but Republicans still claim people don't 
want health insurance coverage, or they claim the numbers are made up.
  The ACA is working. Millions are getting coverage for the first time. 
We are adding jobs to the economy. Giving big business a green light to 
drop coverage for their workers is not the way to move this country 
forward.
  Workers have the right to decent health care, and businesses should 
help them get it. That is the fair thing, that is the right thing, and 
this bill takes us in the total wrong direction.
  So I urge my colleagues, vote ``no.'' This is a very bad bill for 
America's

[[Page H2869]]

workers. Don't let the Republicans kid you otherwise.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague who is working so 
hard on the Ways and Means Committee and also as vice chair of our 
conference.
  I rise today in support of the Save American Workers Act, an 
important bill that I am proud to say I am a cosponsor of as well. 
Every day, we learn more and more of the dangers facing millions of 
Americans due to the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare.
  Just last week, in North Carolina, we learned that substitute 
teachers will be getting their hours cut and their incomes cut because 
of this irresponsible mandate. North Carolina teachers are being 
notified of their cuts, and millions of hardworking Americans across 
this country will work less and suffer more in order to comply with 
this law.
  In my own district, substitute teachers are facing the same problem. 
In Lee County, an official confirmed to my office:

       We are cutting the hours of our part-time people, our 
     substitute teachers.

  Nationwide, 76 percent of public school teachers are women. This is a 
direct assault on women. This so-called law is a complete and total 
assault on women. More than half of the workforce today, of the 72 
million women in the workforce, are the primary wage earners for their 
family.
  Across this country, women stand to lose the most. Sixty-three 
percent of them are women, those who are at risk of losing their hours. 
The facts speak for themselves. I encourage my colleagues to vote for 
this bill, another changing bill, changing this very bad law known as 
ObamaCare.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Kansas for 
sponsoring this extremely important time we are taking today. It is so 
important because this is a law, the signature piece of the President's 
legislative agenda, the ObamaCare act that we are dealing with today 
has impacted people's lives in such a profound way.
  I am reminded of the President of the United States who, five days 
before he assumed office, said he was planning to fundamentally 
transform the United States of America.
  We didn't know if that was rhetorical flourish or exactly what it 
would mean. It has taken many forms since that time, but one thing I 
didn't think I would ever see in my district on the faces of beautiful, 
innocent people is a fundamental transformation.
  But I can tell you very clearly, Madam Speaker, that I have seen a 
fundamental transformation in the face of a lot of women, women's faces 
in my district, and it is this: I am seeing them, for the first time, 
not be able to look me in the eye.
  There is a loss of dignity. There is a sense of shame, and there is 
an embarrassment because there are women, Madam Speaker, who had full-
time jobs who could support their families, and now, they don't have 
them.
  They have been lost because their employer no longer can keep the 
full-time jobs. I have seen women who have lost their jobs altogether. 
I have seen women whose hours have been backed off to the extent that 
they can hardly afford to pay the gas to go in the car to get to work. 
Life has really changed for women in my district.
  This isn't made up. This is real. That is the fundamental 
transformation, and I am sorry to say, Madam Speaker, it is not for the 
better. You see, we all hoped that, perhaps once this bill passed, that 
maybe we would be proven wrong. Maybe this bill actually would help a 
lot of women in our district.

                              {time}  1345

  I am not denying that there aren't a few people who have been 
helped--there are some--but what is remarkable is the number of men and 
women who I have met who lost health insurance, who said to me: 
Michele, what happened? The President promised me if I liked my plan, I 
could keep it. Why can't I keep it? They have said to me: Michele, I 
relied on my doctor.
  One woman who called me was scheduled for cancer surgery. She was 
denied. She wasn't able to go through. The hospital canceled it. Then 
her doctor was changed out from under her and she was depressed. She 
didn't know where she could go. We spent hours on the phone to try and 
help find someone who could take care of her.
  Then I got a call, Madam Speaker, from a female physician who said: I 
want you to know, in my practice, I spend 90 percent of my time 
speaking to my patients, diagnosing them, and giving them advice, and 
now I spend 50 percent of my time doing that because I have to spend 50 
percent of my time filling out paperwork.
  Madam Speaker, let's listen to the women of this country and 
fundamentally transform their lives for the better. That is why I 
support H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington State (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers), our honorable chair of the 
Republican Conference.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman 
from Kansas for her leadership on this important issue.
  I rise to join in expressing strong support for H.R. 2575, the Save 
American Workers Act. This is to restore the 40-hour workweek and to 
save jobs. All across this country, people continue to struggle under 
this economy. They see it when they look at their paycheck and their 
take-home pay. They see it at the doctor's office, and they see it in 
the workforce.
  Today, too many hardworking Americans are feeling the impact of 
higher premiums and higher deductibles. Too many people are having 
their hours cut, losing their jobs, and losing their health insurance--
all because of ObamaCare. In fact, CBO recently reported that 2.5 
million Americans are at risk of having their hours cut because of this 
law. These are the very people that are often struggling to make ends 
meet, whether it is the young people, recent college grads, or single 
moms trying to provide for their families.
  The President likes to suggest that his policies are helping women, 
but actually what is happening is that his policies are setting women 
back. Women are being hurt by these policies. Hundreds of them have 
already lost their jobs in the home health care industry. Nearly 2 
million people will see their hours cut or their jobs lost in the 
service industries.
  You know, for the first time, earlier this year with the jobs report, 
we actually saw where the health care sector lost jobs where women 
disproportionately are actually employed. Women, single moms, young 
people who work late nights at a McDonald's drive-through, bag 
groceries at the local market, or serve as teachers' aides in the 
classroom will be impacted because of this law.
  Women, and all across America, people succeed when our economy 
succeeds, when jobs are created and you can take home more pay. That is 
the definition of good policy. That is what this bill actually 
achieves, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out 
to my colleagues that CBO did not say people would lose their jobs. 
They said because they have health care, they no longer have to stay in 
the job that they have, and they will be able to stay home or do 
something else, and that will reduce the number of hours of work. They 
did not say the bill cuts them out or knocks them out of work.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam Speaker, I am listening to the stories here on 
the floor. I must say I am a little surprised at this newfound 
commitment on the other side of the aisle to women.
  So how about raising the minimum wage for women? How about joining 
with us in extending unemployment insurance for women? How about the 
fact that 7.1 million Americans have enrolled in this program you don't 
like, that you want to call a failure? 7.1 million of our fellow 
Americans beg to differ, and a lot of them are women.
  It is not true what you are selling today on the floor, I would say 
to my friends, Madam Speaker. In fact, women will be the biggest 
beneficiary

[[Page H2870]]

of ObamaCare, protecting their families, protecting their health care, 
protecting their reproductive rights, which you--I would say to my 
friends on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker--would deny. 
Other than that, yes, you are protecting women.
  If we are going to be serious about this, Madam Speaker, let's 
recognize the truth. The truth is this ObamaCare protects the interests 
of women. This bill would undo it. In fact, the biggest victims of 
legislative action, if we pass this bill today, will in fact be the 
very women some of my colleagues have been talking about today.
  I urge my colleagues who say they are committed to the interests of 
women to vote against this bad bill and to support the expansion of 
health care, especially for working women in America.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming, I just want to highlight that, according to the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, a substitute teacher earning $11.07 an hour, if that 
substitute teacher's hours were cut back from 39 to 29 hours, she would 
lose $125 per week, or $6,484 per year, or nearly a 26 percent pay cut. 
These are the folks we are here fighting for.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. 
Lummis).
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, I come from the wild West. I come from a 
place of wide open opportunity. And women in the West want freedom and 
liberty and the ability to create their own business. Women want to 
expand the businesses they already have and play a bigger role in the 
American entrepreneurial dream.
  But ObamaCare makes it more affordable for women entrepreneurs to 
keep their employee numbers below 50 and their employee hours below 30. 
This makes no one's life better--not women entrepreneurs and not for 
their women employees. In fact, two-thirds of those most at risk of 
losing work hours because of ObamaCare are women.
  Let's fix this. Let's save American workers. Let's pass the Save 
American Workers Act.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the courtesy 
of yielding, especially today as I rise in support of H.R. 2575.
  I was first approached about the problem with the 30-hour full time 
definition by Steve Palmer, one of the owners of Palmer Place 
restaurant, an institution in LaGrange, Illinois. This is a family 
business committed to their community and their employees. They offer 
insurance coverage to their workers when possible. Because of the 
nature of the business, many of their employees are part-time and work 
flexible schedules. But the ACA's definition of full-time work has put 
the Palmer family's one restaurant on the cusp of being classified as a 
large business. The family, thus, finds itself facing a hefty new 
expense for health insurance or a fine.

  This is the scenario being faced by many family-owned businesses 
struggling to plan for the future. The workers at some of these 
businesses are about to get a far different deal than they bargained 
for when they accepted their jobs. As a result of the 30-hour rule, 
some part-time employees are seeing their hours reduced.
  The CBO has confirmed that shifting to a 40-hour full time definition 
would lead some workers to seeing an increase in their take-home pay. 
In addition to lost wages, many workers could lose scheduling 
flexibility so that they won't cycle in and out of full-time status 
from week to week. These are ways that workers will lose.
  The administration has already acknowledged the difficulty in 
implementing the employer coverage rules of the ACA through two delays 
in substantial administrative changes. Clearly, the administration 
knows there are problems with the employer coverage rules as currently 
contained in the law. Today, it is reported that former White House 
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said: ``I don't think the employer mandate 
will go into effect.''
  Madam Speaker, let's do right by America's part-time workers and by 
family businesses. Let's pass this bill and fix this broken part of the 
ACA. That is what the American people are looking for. That is what we 
should do.
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Save 
American Workers Act. ObamaCare redefines full-time employment as 30 
hours per week, rather than the traditional 40 hours per week, and 
mandates that any business with more than 50 full-time equivalent 
employees must provide health insurance. If these businesses do not 
provide insurance, they face a tax penalty.
  My district is ripe for job growth. Indiana's manufacturing industry 
is booming. Yet, as I travel throughout the district, I speak 
frequently with business owners afraid to expand due to this rule.
  Other Hoosier businessowners will be forced to lay off employees if 
this 30 hour definition is not changed. Women are disproportionately 
affected. Sixty-three percent of those most at risk of lost hours in my 
district are female.
  The Save American Workers Act will unleash job creation by repealing 
this 30 hour definition and replacing it with the traditional 40 hour 
definition.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, would you give us an accounting of the 
time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from 
Washington has 12 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Kansas 
has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), a colleague on the House Ways 
and Means Committee.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 2575. You know, sometimes you have to figure out, first 
of all, where did you come from to find out to where you got.
  I was trying to understand the 40-hour workweek. Where could it 
possibly have started? How did we come to accept that, and for 70-some 
years that is full-time employment, 40 hours? I found out it was 
actually the product of the Depression. When they did the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, they said we need to have a measure, so it will be 44 
hours--part of the New Deal, by the way. In 1940, they changed it to 40 
hours a week was full-time employment. Then, all of a sudden, ObamaCare 
comes along and the New Deal has been replaced by a bad deal. We told 
people, no, no, no. It is not 40; it is 30 hours. That is what full-
time employment is.
  Now, when you go back to 1937 and 1940, what were they trying to do? 
They were trying to get America back to work. It was after the Great 
Depression, so it was about getting folks back to work. Now, you fast-
forward to today, and it is not about getting people back to work. It 
is about getting ObamaCare to work.
  This makes absolutely no sense. Who does it hurt the most? It has 
hurt low-income and middle-income people. 2.6 million folks have been 
affected by either losing a job or losing hours.

                              {time}  1400

  So you have got to scratch your head and say, Wait a minute. If we 
are really trying to get America back to work, why would we take their 
hours from them? Why would we slash their workweeks by 25 percent and 
think it is going to work? It has nothing to do with working people. It 
has to do with making ObamaCare work.
  I have got to tell you that we have the New Deal that got replaced 
with a bad deal, and now we have H.R. 2575. Do you know what it is? It 
is a good deal. This is a good deal. With 435 Members, any one of us 
could say that this just doesn't make sense right now for the folks we 
represent. Why would we do this to them? Why would we take their work 
hours away? Why would we put in jeopardy 2.6 million people just in an 
effort to make ObamaCare work?
  If it is about making it easier for Americans to work, then it is 
high time we start to turn the tide. It is time we look at what is 
going on and that we say to ourselves, If it worked before, why can't 
it work again? Why can't we go back to 40 hours? Why

[[Page H2871]]

can't we make it easier for American families to get through the hard 
times that they are going through right now?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill to change the 
definition of ``full time'' in the IRS code to 40 hours per week on 
average.
  The 30-hour workweek instituted in ObamaCare is limiting economic 
opportunity across the country. It is especially harmful for women when 
63 percent of those who are most at risk are women. South Dakota has 
one of the highest rates in the country of working women, and I have 
had them come up to me time and time again, talking about how this 
regulation has impacted them. They no longer are getting the hours that 
they need to pay their bills as their hours have been cut. Where they 
are working, they may be forced to take on another part-time job. If 
you want to talk about putting challenges in their way when they are 
trying to fulfill all the requirements of work, of paying their bills, 
of being with their children, of having successful family lives, this 
regulation is one of the worst.
  ObamaCare pressures employers to restrict their full-time ranks in 
order to avoid the employer mandate, putting millions of workers at 
risk of having their hours cut. Now we have two definitions--the 
Department of Labor definition and then the new IRS definition defined 
by ObamaCare. Only here in Washington, D.C., do things like that 
happen. There are two different and exclusive definitions for the very 
same thing. Thus, many workers have had their workweeks cut down to a 
maximum of 29 hours. In many instances, the possibility of their being 
promoted to full time no longer rests on their dedication or on their 
achievements but now on their bosses' abilities to weed through the 
regulatory environment here in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I used to run a small family business, so let me close 
by saying that women-owned businesses have surged over the past 20 
years. We should not be putting obstacles in their way, making it more 
difficult for them to own those businesses, to undermine their growth 
and their ability to create jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill. Let's take a step towards restoring economic freedom in this 
country.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Chicago, Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, there has actually been a debate on this 
floor by all of my colleagues, women, coming down from the Republican 
side, talking about how wonderful this bill is for women and how bad 
ObamaCare is for women.
  I want to make this point, which is that, before the Affordable Care 
Act was passed, there was gender discrimination against women. The 
standard body was clearly the male body because women were paying about 
48 percent more for health care before this law went into effect, a law 
that said there would be no more gender discrimination, that women 
could not be charged more because things like pregnancy might take 
place. Women became among the biggest winners under the new Affordable 
Care Act.
  In talking about protecting women, it is interesting to me that the 
Republicans, including my women colleagues, oppose the raising of the 
minimum wage. Two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. They oppose 
the Paycheck Fairness Act. Isn't it time in 2014 that women get paid 
equal pay for equal work? They oppose the funding of preschool. They 
support a budget that would cut Pell Grants for colleges. They oppose 
making sure that the Affordable Care Act will provide contraceptives as 
a preventative service to women.
  I am also hearing about the economics of freedom. Under the 
Affordable Care Act, now you don't have to be locked into a job because 
you need the health insurance. That is what I call freedom. Suddenly, 
entrepreneurialism is unleashed because women, and men are able to say, 
I am going to take a risk, but I am going to still be able to find 
health insurance.
  The other thing I hear is that it is a job killer. Actually, H.R. 
2575 would force 1 million people to lose their employer-provided 
coverage, and it would increase the number of uninsured up to 500,000. 
This is not a number that has come out of some Democratic think tank. 
This is a number that comes from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office.
  Ask the workers themselves, and this is what they will tell you. The 
National Education Association says, We oppose this bill because we 
believe it would create a disincentive for employers to provide health 
coverage.
  They act like we are changing what full-time employment is, from 30 
to 40 hours.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Here is what we are changing. We are saying, if you 
work 30 hours, your employer should provide you with health insurance.
  What this bill says is, now, if you work 39 hours, your employer can 
deny you health care coverage. So it actually raises the bar and says 
that workers can no longer get coverage between the 30 and 39 hours 
that they work. This is not a good thing.
  The American Federation of Labor represents millions of workers. This 
bill not only fails to address the problem it was intended to solve, 
but it makes the problem worse. Raising the threshold of how many hours 
will only move the cliff and will actually increase employers' 
incentives to reduce workers' hours. The Communications Workers of 
America say the threshold from 30 to 40 hours per week doesn't help. It 
would actually encourage employers to lower the number of hours.
  There has been some implication, I think, that the Teamsters Union is 
supporting this bill. That is not true. The Teamsters are not 
supporting this legislation. I would urge my colleagues to oppose it as 
well, and I encourage my women colleagues to stand up for women.
  Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my colleague on the Committee of Ways 
and Means, control the remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), my friend and 
colleague.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration has done a clever thing over 
these past years, and that is to redefine things.
  They redefined the word ``balance,'' not to mean the traditional 
understanding of ``balance,'' but they said, No, no, no. That really 
means long-term fiscal sustainability. That is the new definition of 
``balance.''
  They did the same thing on tax reform. The common understanding of 
``tax reform'' is that you lower rates; you use loopholes to bring 
rates down; and you simplify the Code. Instead, they said, No. ``Tax 
reform,'' for us, means, yes, let's close loopholes, but let's use 
those closures to fuel more spending.
  The richest one I have heard so far is to hear a White House 
spokesman make the claim, basically, that a job is now a burden and 
that now, with ObamaCare, there are going to be over 2 million 
Americans who are shed from that burden, Mr. Speaker, and that they 
don't have to worry about working anymore because they have got this 
new health care plan.
  It is now finding itself coming true in this bill as well, and what 
the Obama administration has said is, We are just going to create a new 
definition of ``full-time work.'' Full-time work has meant 9 to 5. 
Full-time work has meant 40 hours a week. Not with ObamaCare. ObamaCare 
has now redefined it. It is a long pattern of redefinitions, and these 
redefinitions have led to failure.
  So here is the thing. We have got an opportunity to remedy this. We 
have got an opportunity to make it right. We have got an opportunity to 
recalibrate full-time work to what it has historically meant, and here 
is what the

[[Page H2872]]

bottom line is: if we recalibrate it, we will get more work to the very 
people whom our opponents on the other side claim to speak for, and the 
irony is that their remedies mean less work for the very groups that 
they speak to advocate for.
  Mr. Speaker, we have got a chance today, and that is to support this 
bill, to do it quickly and to get us back to the normal definition of 
``full-time work,'' which is 40 hours a week.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), another 
colleague and good friend of mine.
  Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation.
  Of course, President Obama's own health care law has now resulted in 
the direct loss of work for millions of people across this country. One 
of the perverse incentives in ObamaCare actually forces employers 
through incentives in the law to drop the number of hours that their 
employees work. This isn't something employees want, and it is not 
something employers want; yet it is directly there in the law where you 
get penalized--you actually get fined by the IRS--if you are not doing 
this. When you talk about these impacts of the law, it is having 
devastating impacts on families across this country. The President was 
talking about the minimum wage. The President has literally forced a 25 
percent pay cut for millions of Americans through his incentive in the 
law that is encouraging employers to drop their workforce hours below 
40 hours a week to 30 hours and 28 hours a week.
  I represent parts of the city of New Orleans. Some of the best 
restaurants in the world are in the city of New Orleans. We love going 
to those restaurants, and so many people from all over the world love 
going to those restaurants, but many of those restaurant owners tell me 
that they love their workforces, that they love the employees who work 
for them. They are like family businesses. Yet they are being forced 
because of this law to drop the hours of those workers below 30 hours.
  There is no reason for this, Mr. Speaker. This bill fixes this 
problem.
  President Obama and the White House said, Hey, look. This is a burden 
for poor workers. This is freeing them up to do things that they really 
want to do--as if people don't want to be working. One of the things 
they said is that you could go sit in a park and write poetry. These 
people don't want to be sitting in a park, writing poetry, at 2 o'clock 
on a Thursday afternoon. They want to be at their jobs, working, and 
the law doesn't let them do that.
  Let's fix this. We can get this economy moving again. These are crazy 
policies, like this component of ObamaCare that literally forces people 
to be dropped below 30 hours to address some new definition of ``part-
time worker'' and ``full-time worker.''
  These are the kinds of policies that are devastating American 
families. This is what we are here to fix. We need to pass this bill, 
fix this problem and get people back to work so they don't have to sit 
on a park bench on a Thursday afternoon, and they can actually be at 
their jobs, working.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 11 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Washington has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My colleagues out here today have really had a good time telling 
personal stories, so I have got a few of them for them.
  Last week, the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Cruz, put a 
poll up on his Facebook, asking if people are better off under the law. 
The responses were not what he expected. The overwhelming number of 
responses--he got nearly 56,000 responses--were in support of the ACA. 
If you look at it online, of the most recent 100 comments, there are 
just two that appear more negative than positive, so that is 2 percent 
that are against it.
  One of them said:

       Not only am I better off now, but I have friends who are 
     better off, too.

  The second one said:

       Yes. I have MS, and I lost my job, and I wasn't able to get 
     any other insurance because of my preexisting condition. 
     Thank you, President Obama.

  Another one said:

       This Nation is better off for helping people avoid the 
     devastation that poor health can bring. Thank you, ACA.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
       Senator Ted Cruz
       Quick poll: Obamacare was signed into law four years ago 
     yesterday. Are you better off now than you were then?
       Comment with YES or NO!
       Like--Comment--March 24 at 5:45am--
       Martha Hall Hansen, Pat White Garcia, Linda Hidy and Top 
     Comments 10,204 others like this.
       5,120 shares
       Carol Rietz Gates: Not only am I better off, but I have 
     friends that are better off. Furthermore, this nation is 
     better off for helping folks avoid the devastation that poor 
     health can bring. Thank you, ACA!
       1,359--March 25 at 6:46pm
       13 Replies--1 hr
       Kris Williams: I and a few million other people are a lot 
     better off. I hope you are enjoying your Cadillac plan given 
     to you by your wife's employer, Goldman Sachs. Stop trying to 
     deny the rest of us the peace of mind that quality, 
     affordable health insurance provides us.
       1,342--March 24 at 10:13pm
       16 Replies--11 mins
       Benjamin Corey Feinblum: Yes. Costs stopped climbing. I'm a 
     small business guy and I don't have to worry because 
     insurance companies can't drop us anymore.
       2,901--March 24 at 3:14pm
       52 Replies--10 mins
       Lili Ann Fuller: YES, best law ever! And way overdue! I 
     spent all my retirement savings on overpriced insurance in 
     order to save my life when I got cancer in 2005. I had no 
     income and now have no savings. If it had been in place back 
     then, I wouldn't be looking at a poor retirement, but at 
     least I am not worried about having care anymore.
       2,300--March 24 at 2:04pm--Edited
       25 Replies--7 hrs
       Lashawn Bell: Yes I have MS and I lost my job I wouldn't be 
     able to get any other insurance because of my pre existing 
     condition thank you President Obama. If people get sick they 
     will realize how this is good.
       1,288--March 24 at 2:00pm
       16 Replies--1 hr
       Anne Wittig Pryor: I don't have Obamacare, but someone I 
     know who had bad mouthed it for the past for years, recently 
     had to get coverage after her husband recently passed away. 
     The first words out of her mouth, ``Thank God for 
     Obamacare.'' She is a staunch Republican and believes 
     everything she hears on Fox News. And those who are saying 
     they won't comply are cutting off their noses to spite their 
     faces. Wake up!
       2,798--March 24 at 1:49pm
       52 Replies--2 hrs
       Paige Brennan: Impeach Ted Cruz! He caused the shutdown 
     that hurt this country badly!
       3,188--March 24 at 1:18pm
       73 Replies--1 hr
       Joe Caparco: Isn't it funny that the govemment ``makes'' 
     you buy car insurance and home owners insurance and no one 
     says a word. For those of you who say you can't afford health 
     insurance what will you do when you need your health 
     insurance. No need to answer I alre . . . see more
       1,984--March 24 at 1:11pm
       68 Replies
       Larry E White: Absolutely better off, now lets push for 
     universal healthcare for everyone.
       2,705--March 24 at 1:08pm
       26 Replies--1 hr
       Sherry Scott Stewart: Absolutely Yes! I have pre-existing 
     condition that I was born with but didn't appear until later 
     in life and could not get health insurance at all. I finally 
     have decent affordable insurance.
       What a huge relief!
       1,134--March 24 at 1:05pm
       4 Replies
       Dave Ninehouser: Yes, my wife's little niece who is very 
     sick would have hit her lifetime limit by now if not for the 
     ACA. The nation is better off.
       1,684--March 24 at 11:44am
       10 Replies
       Kris Williams: What is really sad is how the American 
     people have been kept in the dark as to what the ACA really 
     is. The whole purpose and driving force behind the ACA was to 
     Improve care and lower costs. The majority of the law deals 
     with Medicare. The medical cost . . . See More
       1,047--March 25 at 1:08am--Edited
       32 Replies
       Robin Conrad: Yes, my son has Healthcare for the first time 
     and I know many friends it is helping. The ACA is awesome.
       1,101--March 24 at 7:16pm
       18 Replies
       Shelley Laysi Peterson: hummm something tells me this isn't 
     quite the response Mr Cruz was hoping for ROFLMAO
       1,828--March 24 at 5:58pm
       36 Replies--4 hrs
       Shelley Laysi Peterson: YES, YES & YES!! Hands Off My 
     Obamacare!!
       1,076--March 24 at 5:52pm
       16 Replies--14 mins
       Felicia Willems: Yes! Everyone in my family has a pre-
     existing condition that range from minor to serious. We were 
     uninsurable on the individual market Now we've got

[[Page H2873]]

     great coverage through healthcare.gov. We did NOT get a 
     subsidy but it still fits our budget!
       2,711--March 24 at 3:19pm
       69 Replies
       Meredith Stark: Oh Senator Cruz, four years ago we didn't 
     have health insurance, and now we do. It's helping my husband 
     and I.
       914--March 24 at 2:26pm
       11 Replies--1 hr
       Laura Eakes: Only in America would people be cursing other 
     people for finally being able to get health insurance, and 
     calling them mooches and socialists. I'd rather be a 
     socialist than a selfish psychopath like many right wingers 
     on here
       1,081--March 24 at 2:09pm
       27 Replies--9 hrs
       Jeffrey Albuna: Well Mr. Cruz, firstly I want to say, I 
     think your actions putting our country hostage for your 21 
     hour publicity stunt were awful and despicable. You stood up 
     there for 21 hours railing against Obamacare, to show the Tea 
     Party you ``care'' about their v . . . See More
       1,444--March 24 at 1:53pm
       18 Replies
       Brenda Myrick Yasulevicz: For those of you who think that 
     anyone who answered yes ``is a part of the problem'', I have 
     worked hard my entire life and done fairly well. I always had 
     jobs with insurance. Then I became self employed and found 
     out I couldn't get insured because of pre-existing 
     conditions. (None are serious or life threatening, or even 
     require much care) I am very grateful for this insurance!
       997--March 24 at 1:26pm
       16 Replies--2 hrs
       David C. Brown: Yes Ted. In spite of your empty pandering 
     rhetoric I am better off now that I was four years ago. I now 
     have an insurance plan, purchased from a private company, 
     that must insure me rather than suck profit from me. Before, 
     I was dumped from insurance f . . . See More
       2,071--March 24 at 11:47am
       47 Replies--2 hrs
       Art Zimmerman: Damn straight I am . . . we all are after 
     the Bush/Cheney near destruction of our country and the 
     bullshit trickle-down Republican garbage!!
       576--March 24 at 6:34pm--Edited
       Joy Williams: Of course we are better off. We will now have 
     consistent care without it destroying our finances.
       491--March 24 at 4:32pm
       2 Replies
       Chuck Provonchee: Yes, Cruz, you pitiful waste of space, we 
     are all much better off under the ACA. The only ones who 
     would not agree with that are the mindless people who blindly 
     follow the GOP and vote against their own best interests. You 
     should enjoy your time as senator because I don't think you 
     will ever win another election.
       548--March 24 at 2:45pm
       11 Replies--2 hrs
       Russ Campbell: Thank God for Obama Care. I now have health 
     care and they discovered I have cancer. I'm going to have 
     surgery in one week and I might live. Without Obamacare I 
     would just die.
       576--March 24 at 1:10pm
       34 Replies--2 hrs
       Terry Kelley-King: YES . . . I have insurance and am very 
     happy to have it . . . of course it could be better by making 
     it single payer . . . but this is a republican health plan so 
     it can't be perfect
       1,699--March 24 at 1:05pm--Edited
       47 Replies
       Dave Posmontier: Definitely YES!. We now have drug coverage 
     and do pay a little bit more in co-pays but get this--My wife 
     and I are saving $550 a month in premiums. Thanks you 
     President Obama . . .
       609--March 24 at 1:04pm
       4 Replies
       Kevin Lawton: Much better off. We'd be even better off if 
     people like you weren't in the US Senate.
       1,736--March 24 at 12:15pm
       32 Replies
       Barbara J Cobuzzi: Yes, much better off.
       1,042--March 24 at 12:06pm
       11 Replies--1 hr
       LN Winchester: YES, It's great! Not only for myself and my 
     kids, but for the other five million people who can now get 
     the medical care they need! I'm actually paying a bit more, 
     but I don't mind because so many families are getting the 
     medical services they need, in some cases desperately. That 
     makes it all worthwhile.
       1,169--March 24 at 11:56am
       28 Replies
       Amanda Rosales: YES . . . I was denied heath insurance 
     because of having MS as a pre-existing condition and would 
     soon be going medically bankrupt or stop getting treatment. I 
     now have excellent coverage and have a brighter future!
       1,205--March 24 at 11:52am
       33 Replies--6 hrs
       Bruce Lindner: I just left my insurance agent's office. He 
     walked me through my options with the ACA, and to put it 
     mildly, I'm one happy customer! As a self-employed cancer 
     survivor and a heart attack survivor--factoring in the 
     outrageous prices they've been gougin . . . See More
       397--March 28 at 3:56pm
       11 Replies
       Alisha Clark: Obamacare does not regulate health care, it 
     regulates health insurance companies. Who in their right mind 
     wouldn't want health insurance companies to be regulated?
       472--March 26 at 12:26pm
       15 Replies--1 hr
       Alisha Clark: This morning I received a private message 
     from one of my many fb friends This person would like me to 
     share her story. I can only imagine what this person is going 
     through and I want her to know that we are now in this fight 
     together.
       Hi Alisha: I am n . . . See More
       434--March 26 at 5:48am
       23 Replies--4 hrs
       Cathy Paganelli Kaelin: YES! Saving $350 per month, 
     preventative care plus dental & vision. And now my 2 adult 
     children have health insurance which they went without for 2 
     years. Yes, this family is grateful for the ACA. Thank you, 
     President Obama, for taking this country into the direction 
     of health care for all!
       434--March 25 at 5:17am
       13 Replies
       Bonnie Flournoy: Yes. Previously, I had your plan whereby 
     the ER was my primary physician. Having a strategy alone to 
     seek medical help has lifted a burden. The burden was making 
     me just as sick as my condition. In fact, I think the stress 
     caused the illness.
       874--March 24 at 2:08pm
       15 Replies
       Kathe Mendelsohn-White: YES! Without the ACA, my 21 year 
     old autistic son would not have any insurance. Thank you 
     President Obama.
       1,778--March 24 at 1:12pm
       66 Replies
       Paulina Trefault: At the same time, costs are coming down. 
     The Congressional Budget Office found the health care law is 
     making significant contributions to fiscal responsibility. 
     The CBO's most recent estimates show that repealing the law 
     would actually increase deficit . . . See More
       435--March 24 at 12:15pm
       8 Replies
       Tricia Barsamian-Wise: Yes . . . I no longer work 2 jobs 
     and have the security of not being denied, my insurance going 
     up or being canceled. I clearly understand Ted Cruz's POV on 
     this, his financial backers only hired him to do their dirty 
     work. But what I find so hard to comprehend is average 
     Americans being so cruel and hateful.
       950--March 24 at 11:52am
       28 Replies--6 hrs
       Vik Verma: Yes
       404--March 24 at 11:34am
       Charles Reff: Yes, it allowed me to get better insurance 
     then my job was offering and for less.
       1,368--March 24 at 6:38am
       28 Replies
       Chuck Myers: What I'd REALLY like to know, Senator Cruz, is 
     are you a big enough man to READ the tens of thousands of 
     comments below and admit that just MAYBE, you were WRONG!!!!! 
     If you were truly a representative OF THE PEOPLE you would 
     instantly see how desperat . . . See More
       351--March 29 at 10:51pm
       13 Replies--4 hrs
       Ilene Leftwing: Yes, but would be even better off if my 
     Republican Governor, Nathan Deal, saw fit to help the 
     citizens of Georgia by implementing the medicaid expansion. 
     Anyone who stands against the ACA does not get MY vote.
       316--March 25 at 9:26am
       11 Replies--33 miss
       Sandie Cohen: Please do not take away our health coverage.
       357--March 24 at 3:43pm
       11 Replies--32 mins
       Scotty-Miguel Sandoe: YES! Access to Obamacare saves me 
     money, and as former cancer patient, it means I can no longer 
     be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing 
     condition. This is the best government program since 
     Medicare--thank heavens we have a President who cares about 
     American citizens for a change!
       1,404--March 24 at 11:38am
       54 Replies
       Jeanne Carver: Yes I am. I had a junky plan, which paid 
     nothing until after 7500 per year. I now have affordable 
     healthcare, which costs much less.
       780--March 24 at 1:12pm
       14 Replies
       David Davis: No. I couldn't afford healthcare before and I 
     still can't and now will also have to pay a fine. Wish I 
     could fine the government for making my life hell everyday.
       1,458--March 24 at 5:47am
       322 Replies--4 hrs
       Rick LaCrosse: The politicians that rule should live by 
     their rules & laws!!!
       253--March 24 at 5:52am
       13 Replies--1 hr
       Elizabeth Dubrulle: What an incredibly stupid and badly 
     written question! Were you actually trying to start a 
     discussion about healthcare, in which case your question 
     should have been: is your health care better today than it 
     was four years ago? (my answer would have been . . . See More
       406--March 24 at 8:05am
       23 Replies--2 hrs
       Chris Marko: As a concerned Canadian, I apologize for both 
     Ted Cruz and Justin Beiber, that being said, you can keep 
     both of them, we have a no return policy for defective 
     merchandise.
       135--March 29 at 8:28pm
       Breana Corea: LMAO!!! Nice!
       14--March 29 at 9:40pm
       Something Liberal: please take them back . . . you can 
     imprison them or torture them . . . we don't care.
       15--March 29 at 10:22pm
       View more replies
       Lamar Birdsey: In 1995 I had my first heart attack. At that 
     point I was insured. However, my coverage was immediately 
     terminated by my insurance company. Six months

[[Page H2874]]

     later I had my second heart attack and had no insurance. 
     Subsequently I have had two more attacks and was not covered. 
     I have spent my life savings attempting to stay alive. In 
     2014, I purchased a wonderful Florida Blue policy. My premium 
     is $88.73 per month. My deductible is $600.00 annually and 
     any co-payments are extremely low. EVERYTHING IS COVERED! The 
     most out of pocket expense I will have to pay in a given year 
     is $2250.00. I am much better off now that the ACA has become 
     law. Senator Cruz, I suggest you pack your bags and go back 
     to where you came from, Canada. You are a scourge on this 
     great nation. We do not need or want your ilk here. If you 
     want to screw up a health care program, by all means return 
     to Canada and mess with that one. DO NOT TREAD ON MY 
     OBAMACARE!
       129--March 24 at 8:26pm
       View more replies
       Smooth Stone: No I'm not better off--only because my Koch 
     bought governor nikki haley refused to expand medicaid in my 
     state. Otherwise I would have subsidies to help me live a 
     longer, better life. As a woman who was able to work 
     wonderful jobs with health insurance for 36 years until I had 
     my son. Then I relied on my husband's job to supply me with 
     benefits as I raised our child and only worked `part time' as 
     a school teacher substitute. But what happens when that 
     husband is mutilated by a stoned driver and can no longer 
     work. Goes on social security and medicaid and his family is 
     left to flounder because the now 58 year old mother can no 
     longer get a decent job, no matter her experience but the age 
     matters. So go F**K YOURSELF Ted Cruz.
       128--March 24 at 2:17pm
       Deb Larsen: I am so sorry to hear about your situation.
       11--March 30 at 3:42pm
       Elizabeth Fisher Jeffery Wood: Red states that have chosen 
     not to expand medicaid are not really better off, but that is 
     not the fault of the ACA. (btw, I live in one of those states 
     . . .) What we need to do is grassroots it here until all of 
     the red states accept all of what the ACA has to offer.
       24--March 30 at 6:57pm
       View more replies
       George Rivas: The ACA would've been better with a public 
     option. It's a shame the GOP didn't try to make it more 
     effective instead of grandstanding and wasting everyone's 
     time and money on futile efforts to stop it.
       123--March 24 at 1:30pm
       Ambrosia Rose: Like the half billion dollars Obama spent on 
     a website . . . that money could have gone for actual health 
     care.
       2--March 30 at 3:05am
       Teresa Gottier: Yeah because nobody uses a website today 
     except Obama . . . .
       16--March 30 at 12:47pm
       View more replies
       Terri K Mattingly Puryear: YES, ABSOLUTELY!!! although I am 
     really ashamed of being on your website.
       122--March 24 at 3:18pm
       Mary Duff Henry: It's for a good cause.
       32--March 30 at 8:54am
       View more replies
       Bobby Joe Lyle: Yes! I have been unable to have health 
     insurance for 2 decades because of a preexisting condition. 
     Last week I was finally able to have a colonoscopy thanks to 
     the Affordable Care Act. Today I was informed by the 
     gastroenterologist that the polyps he removed were cancerous. 
     The Affordable Care Act may well have saved me from dying of 
     colon cancer.
       118--March 24 at 1:10pm--Edited
       Sarah A. McCloud:
       11--March 26 at 10:39am
       Lisa Brayer:
       13--March 27 at 2:22am
       View more replies
       Malina Lobel-karimi: Yes, yes and HELL Yes. I had been 
     without insurance for years when we were systematically 
     rejected by ALL carriers due to . . . PREEXISTING CONDITIONS. 
     My son had to have his gallbladder removed WITHOUT insurance. 
     It cost us $80,000.00 Can you imagine eighty thousand dollars 
     for a gallbladder and a weeks stay in a hospital? That's 
     inhuman!
       109--March 26 at 8:33pm
       Wrenn Simms: I can. I was lucky. After i was laid off in 
     09, I ended up in the hospital with emergency gall bladder 
     surgery that turned into an emergency on the operating table. 
     They kept me a week, with two other procedures needing to be 
     done.. I was lucky, that I was still covered by my former 
     employers insurance (it was within the 60 day separation 
     window). The bill was $101,000. I paid less than $200.
       9--March 31 at 5:36pm
       Laura Woller Bishin: Holy crap! 80k?!?
       3--Yesterday at 12:59am
       View more replies
       Julie Pippert: YES! My pregnancy caused me to be excluded 
     from health care--the VERY worst time!--because Texas allowed 
     that. Then I caught an infection in the hospital that left me 
     with a ``preexisting condition'' because I had no insurance 
     at the time. I am SO GLAD I have protection now! THANK 
     GOODNESS! Thanks for the ACA.
       114--March 25 at 5:45am
       Dani Golightly: Holy crap, that's HORRIBLE!!!!
       6--March 30 at 8:51am
       Laura Harper: Women in Texas are an endangered species if 
     Mr. Cruz and his merry band of misogynists have their way.
       45--March 30 at 10:00am
       View more replies
       Caleb Caraway: My healthcare is better, but I live in Texas 
     so lots of other things suck. If we could get Ted Cruz out of 
     office it would be a whole lot better.
       114--March 24 at 2:45pm
       Cody Edge: THIS! But we have to all work to get people like 
     him out of office! Lets get Wendy Davis INTO office too!
       6--6 hrs
       Samantha Scott: I'm an American expat living in Canada. We 
     pay a monthly premium and all the basics are covered; no 
     charge for low income folks. Drawbacks? Sometimes I wait over 
     an hour to see a doctor during walk-in clinic peak hours.
       *waves tiny maple leaf flag*
       *feels bad for anyone who thinks Obamacare is a step 
     backward*
       109--March 24 at 2:06pm
       Candace Marley: I think waiting and waiting at any doctor 
     even in the US is becoming the norm.
       15--March 25 at 12:42pm
       Brilliant Chicky: My daughter waited 4 hours in a us er and 
     was told at that point could be 4 more. She left untreated.
       9--March 29 at 8:46pm
       View more replies
       Jeff Sanderson: YES! ``Obamacare'' saved my grandson's 
     life. He was born with multiple birth defects, and their 
     insurance specifically stated that a birth defect was 
     considered a pre-existing condition. Obamacare eliminated 
     pre-existing conditions, so the family insurance covered the 
     multiple surgeries he needed to stay alive. Today he is a 
     happy, bright little boy. In addition, when his mom had to 
     quit work to take care of him, Obamacare made sure that they 
     would still be insured. Thank you President Obama.
       114--March 24 at 1:29pm
       Jane Foster: Your story touched my heart Jeff. So happy 
     your grandson got the care he needs.
       19--March 29 at 11:37pm
       Kevin Young: And all this happened in 6 months. Sounds like 
     BS]
       March 30 at 8:44am
       View more replies
       Chris Stout: Yes. Being self-employed with a pre-existing 
     condition, the premiums always ended up being extremely high 
     and wouldn't cover what I needed the most.
       I now have a Gold plan with a premium I can afford and all 
     my conditions are covered, so yes, yes, YES!
       107--March 24 at 12:26pm
       Alvin Bates: Yes. Business owner from Oklahoma!
       108--March 24 at 10:03am
       Brandy Mohar:
       2--March 31 at 10:20am
       Rhonda Savage: Oh yes! Saved me 4k out of my pocket in 
     Premiums. AND, I have a better plan. And, I do not qualify 
     for tax credits and am still saving!! Thank you Dems and Mr. 
     President! Your willingness to assure our right to pursue 
     happiness has been much appreciated by millions! As for you 
     Mr. Cruz--I remain very, very ashamed that I used to belong 
     to your party!
       106--March 24 at 8:12pm
       Drew Denega: You lie.
       March 25 at 12:11am
       Lisa Brayer: She doesn't lie. Same for me!
       41--March 27 at 2:33am
       View more replies
       Pearson Klein: YES! I'm better off because those who 
     previously couldn't get it now can. HOW YOU CAN SLEEP AT 
     NIGHT WANTING TO SCREW OVER THE LESS FORTUNATE IS BEYOND ME.
       106--March 24 at 4:13pm
       Greg Zagel: I'm MUCH better-off with Obamacare. This is a 
     fact! The U.S. Senate was better-off without Ted Cruz.
       105--March 24 at 1:24pm
       Barbara Dobriansky: The ACA is a LAW that requires you you 
     to obtain insurance--it is not insurance itself. So all of 
     you saying your doctor won't take Obamacare are inaccurate in 
     that perception. You DO know the mandate is a conservative 
     idea? To make EVERYONE pay into the system so that no one is 
     subsidizing anyone else? The level of ignorance is striking.
       This isn't a real poll, it's a Facebook comment screed to 
     get us all to fight one another and look stupid to the 
     world--most of which has universal health care. By a 
     Communist-raised, now Fascistic, religious fanatic 
     naturalized citizen who wants us to change our Constitution 
     so he can run for president. You can't make this stuff up.
       105--March 24 at 11:56am
       Michael Jennings: The fact that this is a Republican (Newt 
     Gingrich, Heritage Foundation) idea that is now being called 
     Socialism just blows my mind! These people will believe 
     anything that they are told.
       56--March 29 at 8:06pm
       Bobbie Scott: Thank you! Someone has some sense!
       16--March 29 at 9:02pm
       View more replies
       Christina Zadorozny: Seeing you deleted my other comment, 
     LET ME REPEAT, MR CRUZ! The ONLY people who would say NO 
     would be your top 1% friends who because of the ridiculous 
     tax cuts they got, can afford to buy any sort of medical care 
     they want, and it's us in the LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASSES who 
     are giving welfare for the RICH because they are UNAMERICAN, 
     and who refuse to pay their fair share in taxes! Shame on you 
     all, if Eisenhower was here, he would be taxing the rich at 
     91% like he did in the 50s, because after WWII, there was a 
     huge deficit, and he knew he couldn't have a deficit like 
     that hanging over America, so he did what he thought was 
     RIGHT (A NOVEL IDEA, DOING WHAT'S RIGHT, AND NOT

[[Page H2875]]

     JUST WHAT IS GOOD FOR YOUR BASE), and taxed the rich heavily, 
     which guaranteed that there was enough money flowing 
     throughout the economy, so average people were able to create 
     jobs, and they then hired people; everyone had a job if they 
     wanted one, and the 50s women were able to stay home and take 
     care of the kids, and the men were the ones who went to work, 
     and with only one salary, a whole family was supported, 
     houses were bought, cars were bought, the economy boomed! I 
     have NEVER heard anyone complain about the 50s, everyone 
     remembers it as a wonderful time, it's the first time a 
     middle class was invented! We sure do know NOW trickle down 
     doesn't work, look at all the rich with the lowest taxes 
     ever, what jobs were created by them? NONE! It's been proven 
     that the people who create jobs are small business owners! 
     NOT the rich, and NOT the big established companies! I wish 
     Eisenhower could come back and tell you republicans off! I'm 
     sure he would have a few choice words for you and your rich 
     friends! Mr Cruz, you and your rich friends disgust me, and 
     go ahead, delete my statement, since you hate the truth so 
     much!
       100--March 29 at 8:03pm
       Lisa Carpenter: There are plenty of us who say NO, that are 
     not in the 1%. But then it looks like this post was hijacked 
     by obama ops.
       4--March 31 at 4:23pm
       Christina Zadorozny: Why no? I want to know why you would 
     deprive people who need insurance this very necessary law! If 
     you don't need it, great for you! How about the millions who 
     now have it, and for the first time in years are getting the 
     diagnosis and treatments they needed? I can give you plenty 
     of stories of people i know personally who couldn't get 
     insurance any other way, like specifically my brother, who 
     was born with a congenital heart condition that didn't show 
     up til he was an adult; the first attack almost killed him, 
     the 2nd attack, recently, (a couple decades after the first) 
     he just got the ACA, had the attack, they did what needed to 
     be done, which was to laser the part in the heart that was 
     causing the problem, and now he'll have a normal life span 
     without having to worry about possibly dying from that 
     condition! After his first attack, his insurance dropped him 
     immediately, and no other insurance would cover him; about 
     time Americans now have a way of getting treated and being 
     able to work and contribute to society!
       20--March 31 at 4:30pm
       View more replies
       Forrest Erickson: My company has 6 part time employees. 
     Prior to Obama care and when we were 5 employees, the cost 
     for health insurance for us as part time meant that two of us 
     had to remain on our spouses coverage and one went uninsured 
     as the cost was nearly twice what it would be if we were full 
     time. My employees would have been working for insurance and 
     had no take home pay at that rate. Now that employee has 
     coverage on the individual market and so we are all covered 
     one way or another. I will be watching for 2015 to see if it 
     makes sense for us to do the coverage through the exchange 
     with a cafeteria plan so that everyone can get a plan optimum 
     for them. Yeaaa Obamacare! Yes I and my small company are 
     better off.
       100--March 28 at 6:03pm--Edited
       Michael Jennings: Wonder why Fox has not reported your 
     story?
       25--March 29 at 8:13pm
       Forrest Erickson: I have gotten some letters to the editor 
     published locally prior to this year. Thanks for reading and 
     caring enough to leave the comment.
       24--March 29 at 9:52pm
       View more replies
       Alisha Clark: When you spend all your time telling me what 
     you are against, rather than what your are FOR, that tells me 
     more about you than your ideology.
       100--March 26 at 5:45am
       Jodell Bumatay: But what does it tell us about Ted Cruz 
     when he spent all of time one a Congressional mike reading 
     Doctor Seus? LOL
       1--12 hours ago
       Samuel Shropshire: Yes. My wonderful daughter who is 
     disabled can now come back to America because her ``pre-
     existing'' condition is now covered!
       95--March 24 at 9:23pm
       Liz Huls: Beautiful!!
       5--March 31 at 6:40pm
       Jeffrey Albuna: Doesn't it make you shake your head at just 
     how much of a heartless person these R can be?
       6--Yesterday at 12:00am
       Carl Birk: I suffer from Hemmochrormotosis, diabetes and 
     two minor strokes. I could never get insurance due to pre 
     conditions. This year my insurance coverage increased while 
     my insurance cost was lower by 20%. Stop trying to fight this 
     law. It is in the best interest of the American people. Set 
     aside your beliefs and hatred for the commander in chief and 
     help people better their lives.
       95--March 24 at 8:20pm
       Erma Couey: my daughter has diabetes and was not able to 
     get insurance until the ACA now she payes 500.00 a month with 
     real good insurance that is for husband and herself
       40--March 25 at 4:48am
       Candace Marley: the hatred will stay in the way for most of 
     the pubs. most of them won't even take the time to apply for 
     coverage with the ACA to see what they would get through it.
       18--March 25 at 12:47pm
       View more replies
       Christopher Hausen: I am part of a self-insured group, by 
     virtue of my membership in a Building Trades Union. As of 
     this moment, my hourly contribution hasn't changed, my 
     monthly premium cost hasn't changed, my co-pay, & deductible 
     amounts haven't changed, my ``choice'' of in-network 
     providers hasn't changed, and my coverage has improved. I 
     would have to answer the Senator with a resounding ``Yes!''. 
     More importantly, by any metric, more American citizens have 
     access to health care than prior to 2008. Not only has the 
     PPACA Improved my health care service, it has Improved health 
     care accessibility for the Country, as well.
       100--March 24 at 2:33pm
       James Rowland: Same here. We are looking at a possible 
     small increase next year but our contributions haven't gone 
     up since 2011 and even that was only a small increase.
       1--3 hrs
       Patty Kennedy: Most definitely YES! America is the only 
     Western Industrialized country without nationalized 
     healthcare for all. America is the only industrialized 
     country that allows corporations to earn a profit on the 
     suffering and dying of it's people. Which is why until the 
     ACA passed we were paying DOUBLE what Canadians pay for their 
     better rated Healthcare system that covers everyone. Our 
     ``for profit'' healthcare system was chewing up an incredible 
     17.6% of our entire GDP when Obama took office.
       It is not ``free enterprise'' when a group of corporations 
     set an artificially high price for something everyone needs, 
     it is an Oligopoly; something Adam Smith warned against in 
     ``The Wealth of Nations'' as always being bad for the 
     consumer.
       The insurance exchanges of the ACA mark the first time in 
     American history the Health Insurance Oligopoly has ever 
     competed one with another for business in a genuine Free 
     Market.
       99--March 24 at 12:00pm
       Ellen Hunt: I'd like to add that we didn't try to force our 
     jackedup system on the countries we invaded--even Iraqis have 
     nationalized health care. Nobody's stupid enough to try to 
     adopt our atrociously horrible health care insurance system.
       32--March 30 at 6:28am
       Deb Lindstrom: Good point. We support Israel by sending 
     them the equivalent of about $8.5 Million Dollars per DAY. 
     They have nationalized health care for all citizens, and just 
     this past February created a new law (the most liberal on the 
     planet) that allows their female citizens to get on demand 
     abortions, fully paid for by the Israeli government So now, 
     Republicans, how do you like knowing that your tax dollars 
     are going to subsidize both health care coverage and free 
     abortions in the nation of Israel?
       36--March 30 at 2:03pm
       View more replies
       Eric Koenig: Yes: my Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance 
     lapsed in the Fall of 1985 because I was late in paying a 
     quarterly premium and, as I have epilepsy, they were all too 
     happy to cite ``pre-existing conditions'' as grounds for 
     refusing to re-enroll me. The Affordable Care Act enabled me, 
     in early 2010, to once again acquire Blue Cross/Blue Shield 
     insurance and it has been of great benefit to me. Without the 
     Affordable Care Act, I'd still be subsisting on County health 
     care, meaning at taxpayer expense. Which do you think sounds 
     better?
       91--March 25 at 9:36pm
       Sandie Cohen: Yes . . . much better off. Go ACA. Now we 
     have coverage. !!
       93--March 24 at 3:42pm
       Pamela John: FANTASTIC!
       29--March 24 at 4:51pm
       Elvira Ramirez: Obamacare is working and yes we are better 
     off today than then!
       94--March 24 at 3:02pm
       Deb Lindstrom: Economies in most all red states suck. Take 
     it from me. I grew up and lived for three decades in a blue 
     state where the quality of life was excellent. Then my post-
     graduate career took me first to one red state, then to two 
     more. In all cases, the quality of life stunk, the wages for 
     almost all people were much lower, the public schools systems 
     far more inferior, everybody hated unions but didn't know why 
     (unions help the common citizen enjoy the fruits of 
     capitalism--which means the ability to acquire more capital 
     just like corporations do), and to top it off . . . I had 
     never heard of state sales taxes on food and clothing. Worse 
     still, it is fact that the blue states give some of their 
     state income tax revenue to the federal government who 
     redistributes it to the red states to help prop them up. So 
     there you have it. It is not the Democrats who are the 
     welfare freeloaders . . .
       45--March 30 at 1:57pm
       Lorie DeBehnke: Yes I am better off. I was injured by a 
     drunk driver while crossing the street. That injury gave me a 
     pre existing condition.After I was laid off of my last 
     corporate job I lost any coverage I had. Because of that pre 
     existing condition I was quoted between 1000-1500 a month for 
     coverage just for myself. More than my rent and utilities.
       Thanks to Obamacare I now have insurance for the first time 
     in 7 years . . .
       Thanks obamacare.
       21--March 31 at 10:09am--Edited
       Dorothy Sasscer: I'm not impacted by this but so many of my 
     friends are AND IT'S BEEN A MIRACLE FOR THEM! They have 
     healthcare now--affordable healthcare--with better coverage. 
     And they don't have to worry about GETTING healthcare because 
     of a pre-existing condition!
       ACA IS WORKING FOR WORKING AMERICANS!
       92--March 24 at 1:56pm

[[Page H2876]]

       Boutwell: YES! We were going t lose our insurance because 
     my late spouse had MS, thanks to Obamacare they could not 
     drop us, made his last months better knowing we couldkeep our 
     home and not be totally broken by medical bills. Thank God 
     every day for Obamcare. It made me a democrat
       93--March 24 at 11:33am
       LN Winchester: PETITION TO REPUBLICANS TO ALLOW MEDICAID 
     EXPANSIONS! CLICK ON LINK: https://www.facebook.com/dailykos?
v=app_335652843138116 . . .
       22--March 30 at 7:20pm--Edited
       View more replies
       Kent Hill: . . . Yes, and with the obstructive anti-
     American stances of most republicans in congress, I will find 
     it hard to vote with anyone with an (R) behind their name.
       85--March 27 at 7:51pm
         

[[Page H2877]]

         

 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  April 3, 2014, on pages H2873-H2882, material containing 
photographs inadvertently appeared.
  
  The online version has been changed, beginning on page H2872, to 
correctly format the material submitted for printing in the 
Congressional Record and to remove photographs that were 
improperly printed. This resulted in a diminution of pages 
concluding in a page reference of H2876-H2882.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to 
enter into the Record two letters--one from the Chamber of Commerce of 
the United States of America, which is in strong support of H.R. 2575, 
and then another letter from the National Federation of Independent 
Business--and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Reichert), my good friend and a member of the Committee on Ways and 
Means.

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                    Washington, DC, April 2, 2014.
       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation representing the interests of more than three 
     million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as 
     well as state and local chambers and industry associations, 
     and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending 
     America's free enterprise system, strongly supports H.R. 
     2575, the ``Save American Workers Act of 2014,'' which would 
     redefine a ``full-time employee'' for purposes of the 
     employer mandate provision in the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to reflect the traditional 40-
     hour work week constituting full-time employment. This bill 
     would be a critical step in helping protect employees and 
     employers against what would amount to a significant 
     redefinition of workforce status.
       Under the employer mandate provision of the PPACA, 
     businesses with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees 
     (FTEs) are required to provide affordable, minimum value, 
     health care coverage to all full-time employees as well as 
     coverage to their dependents, or potentially pay significant 
     penalties. For the first time in history, the PPACA defines a 
     full-time employee as an individual working 30 hours per week 
     or more averaged over the course of a month. In an attempt to 
     mitigate the anticipated high costs of providing coverage to 
     all employees now considered full time, businesses are 
     restructuring their workforces. Despite the one-year delay of 
     the employer mandate, a recent report by the Chamber and the 
     International Franchise Association confirmed that businesses 
     are already experiencing increased costs causing them to 
     reduce employee hours, limit full-time jobs, and drop health 
     coverage. While the Chamber welcomes and appreciates the 
     administration's ``transition relief' announced in February, 
     it fails to adequately mitigate the harmful impacts of the 
     PPACA's 30 hour workweek definition.
       Returning to the widely-accepted 40-hour definition of a 
     full-time employee would allow businesses to focus on 
     generating jobs, rather than making them choose between 
     reducing growth and unfortunate personnel changes or going 
     bankrupt from employer mandate penalties. By reverting back 
     to the traditional definition, employees and employers would 
     both be protected. Particularly during this time when our 
     economic recovery remains fragile, it is crucial we provide 
     an atmosphere where employers can focus on strengthening 
     their businesses, employing workers in traditional full-time 
     positions, and revitalizing the economy.
       The Chamber continues to champion health care reform that 
     builds on and reinforces the employer-sponsored system while 
     improving access to affordable, quality coverage. The Chamber 
     urges you and your colleagues to support H.R. 2575, and may 
     consider including votes on, or in relation to, this bill in 
     our annual How They Voted scorecard.
           Sincerely,

                                              R. Bruce Josten,

                                         Executive Vice President,
     Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                    Washington, DC, April 3, 2014.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Federation 
     of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's leading small 
     business advocacy organization, I am writing in support of 
     H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act of 2013. H.R. 2575 
     will be considered an NFIB Key Vote for the 113th Congress.
       This legislation would replace the new 30-hour per week 
     full-time or full-time equivalent (FTE) employee definition 
     in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) 
     with a 40-hour per week definition. PPACA defines full-time 
     employee for the purpose of the employer mandate as an 
     employee who works an average of 30-hours per week (130-hours 
     per month). The employer mandate is a requirement that 
     businesses with 100 or more full-time or FTE employees offer 
     qualified, ``affordable'' health insurance to 70 percent of 
     full-time employees or pay costly penalties beginning in 
     2015. In 2016, businesses with 50 or more full-time or FTE 
     employees must offer qualified, ``affordable'' health 
     insurance to full-time employees and their dependents or pay 
     costly penalties.
       Last year, NFIB testified before the House Committee on 
     Small Business that the new definition is ``one of the most 
     dangerous parts in the law.'' PPACA marks the first time that 
     ``full-time'' is expressly defined in law. Prior to PPACA's 
     enactment, the determination was left up to the employer. 
     Similarly, the Fair Labor Standards Act has long dictated 
     that overtime pay starts after 40-hours per week. Thus, 
     employers and employees have long understood ``full-time'' to 
     be equivalent to 40-hours per week.
       The 30-hour full-time definition is already resulting in 
     less opportunities, fewer hours and lower incomes for 
     employees. Small businesses are already being forced to 
     shrink their workforce below and restricting workforce growth 
     above the 50 employee threshold in preparation for the costly 
     mandate.
       H.R. 2575 would provide some immediate relief for small-
     business owners and employees. According to the Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO), H.R. 2575 would reduce taxes on 
     employers by $63.4 billion over the next ten years. For 
     employees, the bill would prevent decreases in take home pay.
       NFIB supports H.R. 2575 and will consider it an NFIB Key 
     Vote for the 113th Congress. We look forward to working with 
     you to protect small business as the 113th Congress moves 
     forward.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Dan Danner,
                                          President and CEO, NFIB.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a few things going on here.
  One, you have American families working hard every day to juggle 
their lives to provide for their children and their families. They are 
trying to make ends meet and put food on the table and clothes on their 
backs. What happens is this ObamaCare 30-hour rule could seriously 
jeopardize all of those efforts, 30 hours instead of 40 hours.
  Secondly, under ObamaCare, employers are already cutting workers' 
hours just to avoid the employer mandate, so there is another burden 
that is placed on our employees and our employers.
  Third, the law is changing the standard definition of a full-time 
employee to someone who works 30 or more hours rather than 40 or more 
hours. Workers are taking home less pay each month as a result of that. 
Instead of having 38 hours of pay, they might have only 15 or 28 hours 
of pay, or maybe they just lose their jobs, Mr. Speaker.
  Much of that impacted workforce would be restaurants, retailers, and 
hospitality businesses. Eighty-nine percent of those who would be 
impacted do not have college degrees. Talk about helping those that 
need help. ObamaCare's reduction from 40 hours to 30 hours doesn't help 
those people.
  People that don't have college degrees are going to be hurt the 
worst. Over 50 percent do not even have high school diplomas. If they 
lose their job, there may not be somewhere else for them to turn.
  The Save American Workers Act would prevent this from happening. It 
would save jobs, and it would provide relief for everyday Americans 
from the enormous tax burden of ObamaCare, repealing $63.4 billion of 
tax increases.
  I know this is right for my constituents in Washington State, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this legislation today.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will include letters from 
the Employers for Flexibility in Health Care Coalition and the NRF. We 
have a lot of these letters. I think I will read more of them as we go 
on.
  I am fascinated by the results of Senator Cruz's request online to 
hear from people. We will see if we can get some other accurate 
numbers.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reed), my good friend and another member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.

                                         Employers for Flexibility


                                     in Health Care Coalition,

                                                 February 4, 2014.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sander Levin,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Camp and Ranking Member Levin, The Employers 
     for Flexibility in Health Care (E-FLEX) is a coalition of 
     leading trade associations and businesses in the retail, 
     restaurant, hospitality, supermarket, construction, temporary 
     staffing, agriculture, and other service-related industries, 
     as well as employer-sponsored health plans insuring millions 
     of American workers. The E-FLEX Coalition represents 
     employers who create millions of jobs each year, employ a 
     significant workforce in the U.S., offer flexible working 
     environments for employees, and are a leading contributor to 
     the nation's economic job recovery.
       The common thread among Coalition members is that our 
     workforces are of a variable nature, and not traditional 9-5

[[Page H2878]]

     workforces. Maintaining the ability to offer affordable 
     coverage options to our unique workforces under the new 
     requirements of the law is of special concern to us. The 
     Affordable Care Act's (ACA) definition of full-time employee 
     is of particular importance to the E-FLEX Coalition because 
     of our industries' unique reliance on large numbers of part-
     time, temporary, and seasonal workers with fluctuating and 
     unpredictable work hours, as well as unpredictable lengths of 
     service.
       While transition relief for 2014 and flexibility in the 
     proposed rules are greatly appreciated, the E-FLEX Coalition 
     and many in the employer community remain concerned that the 
     ACA employer requirements are fundamentally unworkable and 
     require legislative changes, especially the 30 hours per week 
     definition of full-time employee status. It is critically 
     important to change the law's definition of full-time as 30 
     hours of service to a definition more in line with employment 
     practices. The law's definition of full-time as 30 hours of 
     service per week does not reflect employers' workforce needs 
     or employees' desire for flexible hours. A change is needed 
     to avoid disruptions in the workforce and maintain flexible 
     work options for employees.
       Better aligning the ACA's definition of full-time employee 
     status with current employment practices would help avoid 
     unnecessary disruptions to employees' wages and hours, and 
     would provide critical relief to employers. Increasing the 
     ACA's rigid 30-hour per week definition for full-time status 
     would:
       Make it easier for employers to provide more hours to all 
     employees, thereby increasing their take-home pay;
       Help employers offer more generous health coverage to full-
     time employees without making employers' share of premiums 
     cost prohibitive;
       Help ensure that lower-income employees have access to more 
     affordable coverage options.
       Using a definition of full-time that better reflects 
     current employment practices would not cause employees to 
     lose coverage. In fact, setting the definition of full-time 
     employee status at a higher level would help eliminate a 
     coverage gap for lower income employees in some states and 
     make it easier for employees to increase their income by 
     requesting work schedules according to their particular 
     needs.
       Although sharp differences in opinion about the ACA remain, 
     well-intentioned people on both sides of the debate can agree 
     that using a higher threshold for defining full-time would be 
     better for American workers and businesses than the ACA's 
     lower full-time definition. Committee consideration of H.R. 
     2575--Save American Workers Act of 2013--is a first step in 
     the process of realigning this threshold.
       The E-FLEX Coalition looks forward to continuing to work 
     with the Committee and your colleagues in Congress on a 
     bipartisan basis to strengthen and preserve employer-
     sponsored coverage.
           Sincerely,
     Employers for Flexibility in Health Care (E-FLEX) Coalition.
                                  ____



                                   National Retail Federation,

                                    Washington, DC, April 2, 2014.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Democratic Leader Pelosi: I write 
     to share the strong support of the National Retail Federation 
     (NRF) for H.R. 2575, the Save American Workers Act. Please 
     note that NRF will consider votes on H.R. 2575 and related 
     procedural motions as Key Retail Votes for our annual voting 
     scorecard.
       NRF is the world's largest retail trade association, 
     representing discount and department stores, home goods and 
     specialty stores, Main Street merchants, grocers, 
     wholesalers, chain restaurants and Internet retailers from 
     the United States and more than 45 countries. Retail is the 
     nation's largest private sector employer, supporting one in 
     four U.S. jobs--42 million working Americans. Contributing 
     $2.5 trillion to annual GDP, retail is a daily barometer for 
     the nation's economy. NRF's This is Retail campaign 
     highlights the industry's opportunities for life-long 
     careers, how retailers strengthen communities, and the 
     critical role that retail plays in driving innovation. 
     www.nrf.com
       NRF greatly appreciates the bipartisan support for changes 
     to the Affordable Care Act's definition of full-time work for 
     benefit eligibility. It is, after all, a common sense 
     approach: if asked, most Americans would identify full-time 
     work to be 40 hours per week. Most employers have also long 
     assumed the full-time mark to be 40 hours, consistent with 
     federal overtime rules. In an effort to attract desired 
     employees, many employers have set eligibility for benefits 
     at lower points, but still higher than the ACA's arbitrary 
     30-hour definition.
       The 30-hour definition will force retailers to manage to a 
     new standard: whether or not an employee is above or below 
     the 30-hour level on average. For part-time employees--who 
     will now likely work 30 or fewer hours per week--it will mean 
     lost income. The 40-hour full-time definition proposed in 
     H.R. 2575 will return flexibility to employers to set benefit 
     eligibility at lower levels. We strongly support this 
     necessary and common sense change.
       By any measure, the ACA is bringing profound changes to the 
     labor market--both positive and negative. We hope to continue 
     to work with you to help mitigate the negative effects on the 
     retail industry and retail employees. NRF strongly urges you 
     to vote in favor of H.R. 2575.
           Sincerely,

                                                 David French,

                                            Senior Vice President,
                                             Government Relations.

  Mr. REED. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge support for the bill, the 
Save American Workers Act, introduced by my good friend, Mr. Young of 
Indiana.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental question about what is fair, what 
is fair for the American worker.
  We have had a long history in America of protecting the 40-hour 
workweek. This mandate--this requirement under the Affordable Care Act 
to go to 30 hours as the definition of full-time work is going to hurt. 
It is not fair to the American worker.
  I would just offer comments that I just received from a constituent 
in the 23rd Congressional District, which I have the honor to 
represent.
  Carol Tyler, the owner of Hager's Flowers and Gifts in Gowanda, New 
York, writes:

       As a business owner, I encourage you to vote in favor of 
     legislation that better reflects my business' workforce needs 
     while maintaining wages and flexible health benefits options 
     for my employees.
       The ACA's definition of full-time employee status must 
     align with a standard that better reflects current employment 
     practices within our industry. Increasing the ACA's 30-hour 
     per week definition would make it easier for employers to 
     provide additional hours to all employees.

  That means more money in hardworking taxpayers' pockets across 
America.
  I urge my colleagues to join with Ms. Tyler's plea to support this 
legislation, to stand with the American worker, and protect the 40-hour 
workweek, which means more money in American workers' pockets as they 
go forward.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, there is a contrast between our side and 
the other side. When I hear the other side argue that what this will 
allow people to do is to not have to work, what I hear is they are not 
championing the concept of work.
  I believe in the American work ethic, Mr. Speaker. I believe in the 
strong work ethic that allows people to work a 40-hour workweek has 
made this Nation strong for generations.
  I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to please stand 
with us to protect that which has made America great, and this is the 
40-hour workweek in the American workplace and environment.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I also have a letter from the 
Small Business Coalition for Affordable Healthcare. There are 43 
members signed onto this one.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                                      Small Business Coalition for


                                        Affordable Healthcare,

                                                    April 2, 2014.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi, 
     Representing the country's largest, oldest and most respected 
     small business associations, which have spent more than a 
     decade working to improve access to and affordability of 
     private health insurance, the Small Business Coalition for 
     Affordable Healthcare (the Coalition) is writing in support 
     of H.R. 2575, Save American Workers Act of 2013. This 
     legislation would repeal the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act's (PPACA) 30-hour per week full-time 
     employee definition and replace it with a 40-hour per week 
     full-time employee definition.
       Beginning in 2015, PPACA requires businesses with 100 or 
     more full-time equivalent (FTE) employees to offer affordable 
     health insurance to full-time employees or potentially pay 
     significant penalties. Businesses with 50 or more FTEs must 
     offer affordable health insurance to full-time employees and 
     their dependents or potentially pay penalties beginning in 
     2016. PPACA defines a full-time employee as an employee who 
     averages 30-hours of service per week, or 130-hours of 
     service per month. PPACA's definition of full-time is counter 
     to the traditional 40-hours of service threshold that most 
     American businesses use to define full-time for benefits and 
     other purposes. Implementing this new definition will require 
     most businesses to change both their policies and their 
     practices.

[[Page H2879]]

       Despite the one year delay of the employer mandate 
     requirement for 2014 and more recent transition relief for 
     midsize businesses in 2015, employers have been preparing to 
     closely track employee hours and make these complicated 
     administrative calculations this year, as business size 
     calculations are based on an employer's workforce during the 
     preceding calendar year. Without H.R. 2575, employers will 
     face higher employer mandate penalty taxes, and employees 
     will see reduced hours and take home pay.
       The Coalition urges all Members of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives to support H.R. 2575.
           Sincerely,
       Aeronautical Repair Station Association; American Apparel & 
     Footwear Association; American Bakers Association; American 
     Farm Bureau Federation; American Foundry Society; American 
     Hotel & Lodging Association; American Staffing Association; 
     American Supply Association; Asian American Hotel Owners 
     Association; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; 
     Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated General 
     Contractors; Association for Manufacturing Technology; 
     Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association; International 
     Housewares Association; Metals Service Center Institute; 
     National Association of Convenience Stores; National 
     Association of Home Builders; National Association of RV 
     Parks and Campgrounds; National Association of Theatre 
     Owners; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; 
     National Club Association.
       National Federation of Independent Business; National 
     Restaurant Association; National Retail Federation; National 
     Roofing Contractors Association; National Small Business 
     Association; National Systems Contractors Association; 
     National Tooling and Machining Association; North American 
     Die Casting Association; North American Equipment Dealers 
     Association; Precision Machined Products Association; 
     Precision Metalforming Association; Professional Golfers 
     Association of America; Service Station Dealers of America 
     and Allied Trades; Small Business and Entrepreneurship 
     Council; Small Business Council of America; Society of 
     American Florists; Specialty Equipment Market Association; 
     Textile Rental Services Association; Tire Industry 
     Association; U.S. Chamber of Commerce; WMDA Service Station 
     and Automotive Repair Association.

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, can you tell us how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 7 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Is the gentleman ready to close?
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. We are prepared to close.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano).
  Mr. CAPUANO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I was sitting back in my office trying to get some desk 
work done and watching this debate. I had no intention of speaking, but 
I have just heard these arguments so many times, and they are tiring, 
to be perfectly honest.
  So I did a little bit of work and came up with a couple of quotes I 
wanted to read.
  This is relating to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which I 
have heard referenced on the other side, that talked about a 44-hour 
workweek and minimum wage at the time.
  Here are a couple of quotes.

       The act will destroy small industry . . . these ideas are 
     the product of those whose thinking is rooted in an alien 
     philosophy and who are bent upon the destruction of our whole 
     constitutional system and the setting up of a red-labor 
     communist despotism upon the ruins of our Christian 
     civilization.

  That is a quote from Representative Cox of Georgia.

       The Fair Labor Standards Acts constitutes a step in the 
     direction of communism, bolshevism, fascism, and nazism.

  That is a quote from the National Association of Manufacturers.

       The Fair Labor Standards Act would create chaos in business 
     never yet known to us . . . no decent American citizen can 
     take exception to this attitude. What I do take exception to 
     is any approach to a solution of this problem which is 
     utterly impractical and in operation would be much more 
     destructive than constructive to the very purposes which it 
     is designed to serve.

  That was from Representative Lamneck of Ohio.
  These arguments are not new. When are you going to get tired of being 
behind history? When are you going to get tired of holding the American 
people back?
  Please find an opportunity at any case--health care, housing, 
education, minimum wage, anything--to move us forward. We have 80 
years-plus of the same arguments against the typical legislation that 
simply tries to move America forward and take care of our people.
  It is the same old argument, the same old rhetoric. It was wrong 
then, and it is wrong now.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is an old political tactic to use confusion. We have watched for 
almost 4 years the Republican Party try to confuse the American people 
about the Affordable Care Act. It was the worst thing that was ever 
going to happen on the face of the Earth. We would have storms, 
hurricanes, unemployment, wars, and famines, all because of the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Well, we are up here today with yet another attempt to confuse people 
about the 40-hour workweek and whether or not we are going to cause 
people to lose their jobs.
  On page 125 of the CBO report on the budget outlook for 2004 to 2024, 
it says:

       In CBO's judgment, there is no compelling evidence that 
     part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA.

  Everything you have learned out here about losing jobs is not true. 
There is nothing in the law that says people have to shorten the 
workweek.
  I don't know if anybody on the other side understands the free 
enterprise system. Businesses are run by entrepreneurs who decide what 
kind of product they are going to produce. They hire people to do that. 
They decide the hours. They decide the pay. They decide everything.
  You keep saying that ObamaCare came in and it is forcing these 
entrepreneurs in America to cut their employees' wages and hours. There 
is no such thing in the law. That is not true.
  In fact, my colleague from Washington State (Mr. Reichert) just said, 
Mr. Speaker, that people's hours were already being cut before 
ObamaCare.
  It is not ObamaCare that decides how much somebody works. It is the 
person who runs the company. If he doesn't care about his employees and 
doesn't want to give them health care, that is one thing. There are 
people like that, but there are a lot of people who would like to give 
health insurance to their people, and we are trying to help them do 
that with the subsidies in this bill.
  Let me come to one other issue, and that is this whole question of 
women.
  I have flown back and forth across the country every week, 35 flights 
a year, for 25 years, and I know most of the flight attendants on 
United Airlines between Seattle and Washington, D.C.
  I can't tell you how many of those women are working because they get 
health care benefits. Their husband has a job, but has no benefits, and 
if they don't have their job, they simply won't have health care in 
their family.
  United Airlines has been through two bankruptcies. They have lost pay 
increases. They have lost their pension rights. The only thing they 
have left is that health care benefit, and that is what is holding the 
family together.
  I am sort of interested to watch what happens to the older flight 
attendants I know, to see whether they leave flying, because they would 
like to. Their husband has a job, but before, he couldn't get health 
insurance, and now, he can under the Affordable Care Act, and they can 
quit working.
  When the CBO talks about people working less, it is because the job 
lock is gone. People are not locked into their jobs because of the fact 
that they can't get health insurance anyplace else. It makes it 
available for any American.
  The fact is that the cuts you are seeing--if you see employers that 
are going to take people down from 40 hours a week to 39 so that they 
can avoid giving benefits, take a look at the morals. I wonder if that 
person goes to church and talks about how they take care of the poor 
and the weak and the sick and all the rest.
  No, no. You can't have it both ways. You cannot cut your people down 
1 hour just to get out of giving them benefits, and that is what you 
are suggesting is going to go on in this country.

                              {time}  1430

  I don't think that badly of owners of businesses myself. Now, there 
may be some people out there looking for a

[[Page H2880]]

way to get around the law, but this law doesn't make anybody do 
anything, and this law is going to create more problems.
  You hear 1 million people are going to lose their health care 
benefits, and that is not good. This whole idea of continuing to 
undermine this law by confusing the American people, and making them 
think it bad isn't working. 1.7 million joined.

   Labor Market Effects of the Affordable Care Act: Updated Estimates


                                Overview

       The baseline economic projections developed by the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) incorporate the agency's 
     estimates of the future effects of federal policies under 
     current law. The agency updates those projections regularly 
     to account for new information and analysis regarding federal 
     fiscal policies and many other influences on the economy. In 
     preparing economic projections for the February 2014 
     baseline, CBO has updated its estimates of the effects of the 
     Affordable Care Act (ACA) on labor markets.
       The ACA includes a range of provisions that will take full 
     effect over the next several years and that will influence 
     the supply of and demand for labor through various channels. 
     For example, some provisions will raise effective tax rates 
     on earnings from labor and thus will reduce the amount of 
     labor that some workers choose to supply. In particular, the 
     health insurance subsidies that the act provides to some 
     people will be phased out as their income rises--creating an 
     implicit tax on additional earnings--whereas for other 
     people, the act imposes higher taxes on labor income 
     directly. The ACA also will exert conflicting pressures on 
     the quantity of labor that employers demand, primarily during 
     the next few years.


      How Much Will the ACA Reduce Employment in the Longer Term?

       The ACA's largest impact on labor markets will probably 
     occur after 2016, once its major provisions have taken full 
     effect and overall economic output nears its maximum 
     sustainable level. CBO estimates that the ACA will reduce the 
     total number of hours worked, on net, by about 1.5 percent to 
     2.0 percent during the period from 2017 to 2024, almost 
     entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor--
     given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and 
     the financial benefits some will receive. Because the largest 
     declines in labor supply will probably occur among lower-wage 
     workers, the reduction in aggregate compensation (wages, 
     salaries, and fringe benefits) and the impact on the overall 
     economy will be proportionally smaller than the reduction in 
     hours worked. Specifically, CBO estimates that the ACA will 
     cause a reduction of roughly 1 percent in aggregate labor 
     compensation over the 2017--2024 period, compared with what 
     it would have been otherwise. Although such effects are 
     likely to continue after 2024 (the end of the current 10-year 
     budget window), CBO has not estimated their magnitude or 
     duration over a longer period.
       The reduction in CBO's projections of hours worked 
     represents a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent 
     workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 
     million in 2024. Although CBO projects that total employment 
     (and compensation) will increase over the coming decade, that 
     increase will be smaller than it would have been in the 
     absence of the ACA. The decline in full-time-equivalent 
     employment stemming from the ACA will consist of some people 
     not being employed at all and other people working fewer 
     hours; however, CBO has not tried to quantify those two 
     components of the overall effect. The estimated reduction 
     stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of 
     labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net 
     drop in businesses' demand for labor, so it will appear 
     almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation 
     and in hours worked relative to what would have occurred 
     otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that 
     is, more workers seeking but not finding jobs) or 
     underemployment (such as part-time workers who would 
     prefer to work more hours per week).
       CBO's estimate that the ACA will reduce employment reflects 
     some of the inherent trade-offs involved in designing such 
     legislation. Subsidies that help lower-income people purchase 
     an expensive product like health insurance must be relatively 
     large to encourage a significant proportion of eligible 
     people to enroll. If those subsidies are phased out with 
     rising income in order to limit their total costs, the 
     phaseout effectively raises people's marginal tax rates (the 
     tax rates applying to their last dollar of income), thus 
     discouraging work. In addition, if the subsidies are financed 
     at least in part by higher taxes, those taxes will further 
     discourage work or create other economic distortions, 
     depending on how the taxes are designed. Alternatively, if 
     subsidies are not phased out or eliminated with rising 
     income, then the increase in taxes required to finance the 
     subsidies would be much larger.
       CBO's estimate of the ACA's impact on labor markets is 
     subject to substantial uncertainty, which arises in part 
     because many of the ACA's provisions have never been 
     implemented on such a broad scale and in part because 
     available estimates of many key responses vary considerably. 
     CBO seeks to provide estimates that lie in the middle of the 
     distribution of potential outcomes, but the actual effects 
     could differ notably from those estimates. For example, if 
     fewer people obtain subsidized insurance coverage through 
     exchanges than CBO expects, then the effects of the ACA on 
     employment would be smaller than CBO estimates in this 
     report. Alternatively, if more people obtain subsidized 
     coverage through exchanges, then the impact on the labor 
     market would be larger.


        Why Will Those Reductions Be Smaller in the Short Term?

       CBO estimates that the ACA will cause smaller declines in 
     employment over the 2014--2016 period than in later years, 
     for three reasons. First, fewer people will receive subsidies 
     through health insurance exchanges in that period, so fewer 
     people will face the implicit tax that results when higher 
     earnings reduce those subsidies. Second, CBO expects the 
     unemployment rate to remain higher than normal over the next 
     few years, so more people will be applying for each available 
     job--meaning that if some people seek to work less, other 
     applicants will be readily available to fill those positions 
     and the overall effect on employment will be muted. Third, 
     the ACA's subsidies for health insurance will both stimulate 
     demand for health care services and allow low-income 
     households to redirect some of the funds that they would have 
     spent on that care toward the purchase of other goods and 
     services--thereby increasing overall demand. That increase in 
     overall demand while the economy remains somewhat weak will 
     induce some employers to hire more workers or to increase the 
     hours of current employees during that period.


      Why Does CBO Estimate Larger Reductions Than It Did in 2010?

       In 2010, CBO estimated that the ACA, on net, would reduce 
     the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a 
     percent--primarily by reducing the amount of labor that 
     workers choose to supply. That measure of labor use was 
     calculated in dollar terms, representing the approximate 
     change in aggregate labor compensation that would result. 
     Hence, that estimate can be compared with the roughly 1 
     percent reduction in aggregate compensation that CBO now 
     estimates to result from the act. There are several reasons 
     for that difference: CBO has now incorporated into its 
     analysis additional channels through which the ACA will 
     affect labor supply, reviewed new research about those 
     effects, and revised upward its estimates of the 
     responsiveness of labor supply to changes in tax rates.


          Effects on Retirement Decisions and Disabled Workers

       Changes to the health insurance market under the ACA, 
     including provisions that prohibit insurers from denying 
     coverage to people with preexisting conditions and those that 
     restrict variability in premiums on the basis of age or 
     health status, will lower the cost of health insurance plans 
     offered to older workers outside the workplace. As a result, 
     some will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise 
     would--another channel through which the ACA will reduce the 
     supply of labor.
       The new insurance rules and wider availability of subsidies 
     also could affect the employment decisions of people with 
     disabilities, but the net impact on their labor supply is not 
     clear. In the absence of the ACA, some workers with 
     disabilities would leave the workforce to enroll in such 
     programs as Disability Insurance (DI) or Supplemental 
     Security Income (SSI) and receive subsidized health 
     insurance. (SSI enrollees also receive Medicaid; DI enrollees 
     become eligible for Medicare after a two-year waiting 
     period.) Under the ACA, however, they could be eligible for 
     subsidized health insurance offered through the exchanges, 
     and they cannot be denied coverage or charged higher premiums 
     because of health problems. As a result, some disabled 
     workers who would otherwise have been out of the workforce 
     might stay employed or seek employment. At the same time, 
     those subsidies and new insurance rules might lead other 
     disabled workers to leave the workforce earlier than they 
     otherwise would. Unlike DI applicants who are ineligible for 
     SSI, they would not have to wait two years before they 
     received the ACA's Medicaid benefits or exchange subsidies--
     making it more attractive to leave the labor force and apply 
     for DI.


         Possible Effects on Labor Supply Through Productivity

       In addition to the effects discussed above, the ACA could 
     shape the labor market or the operations of the health sector 
     in ways that affect labor productivity. For example, to the 
     extent that increases in insurance coverage lead to improved 
     health among workers, labor productivity could be enhanced. 
     In addition, the ACA could influence labor productivity 
     indirectly by making it easier for some employees to obtain 
     health insurance outside the workplace and thereby prompting 
     those workers to take jobs that better match their skills, 
     regardless of whether those jobs offered employment-based 
     insurance.
       Some employers, however, might invest less in their 
     workers--by reducing training, for example--if the turnover 
     of employees increased because their health insurance was no 
     longer tied so closely to their jobs. Furthermore, 
     productivity could be reduced if

[[Page H2881]]

     businesses shifted toward hiring more part-time employees to 
     avoid paying the employer penalty and if part-time workers 
     operated less efficiently than full-time workers did. (If the 
     dollar loss in productivity exceeded the cost of the employer 
     penalty, however, businesses might not shift toward hiring 
     more part-time employees.)
       Whether any of those changes would have a noticeable 
     influence on overall economic productivity, however, is not 
     clear. Moreover, those changes are difficult to quantify and 
     they influence labor productivity in opposing directions. As 
     a result, their effects are not incorporated into CBO's 
     estimates of the effects of the ACA on the labor market.
       Some recent analyses also have suggested that the ACA will 
     lead to higher productivity in the health care sector--in 
     particular, by avoiding costs for low-value health care 
     services--and thus to slower growth in health care costs 
     under employment-based health plans. Slower growth in those 
     costs would effectively increase workers' compensation, 
     making work more attractive. Those effects could increase the 
     supply of labor (and could increase the demand for labor in 
     the near term, if some of the savings were not immediately 
     passed on to workers).
       Whether the ACA already has or will reduce health care 
     costs in the private sector, however, is hard to determine. 
     The ACA's reductions in payment rates to hospitals and other 
     providers have slowed the growth of Medicare spending 
     (compared with projections under prior law) and thus 
     contributed to the slow rate of overall cost growth in health 
     care since the law's enactment. Private health care costs (as 
     well as national health expenditures) have grown more slowly 
     in recent years as well, but analysts differ about the shares 
     of that slowdown that can be attributed to the deep recession 
     and weak recovery, to provisions of the ACA, and to other 
     changes within the health sector. Moreover, the overall 
     influence of the ACA on the cost of employment-based coverage 
     is difficult to predict--in part because some provisions 
     could either increase or decrease private-sector spending on 
     health care and in part because many provisions have not yet 
     been fully implemented or evaluated. Consequently, CBO has 
     not attributed to the ACA any employment effects stemming 
     from slower growth of premiums in the private sector.


               Effects of the ACA on the Demand for Labor

       The ACA also will affect employers' demand for workers, 
     mostly over the next few years, both by increasing labor 
     costs through the employer penalty (which will reduce labor 
     demand) and by boosting overall demand for goods and services 
     (which will increase labor demand).


        Effects of the Employer Penalty on the Demand for Labor

       Beginning in 2015, employers of 50 or more full-time 
     equivalent workers that do not offer health insurance (or 
     that offer health insurance that does not meet certain 
     criteria) will generally pay a penalty. That penalty will 
     initially reduce employers' demand for labor and thereby tend 
     to lower employment. Over time, CBO expects, the penalty will 
     be borne primarily by workers in the form of reduced wages or 
     other compensation, at which point the penalty will have 
     little effect on labor demand but will reduce labor supply 
     and will lower employment slightly through that channel.
       Businesses face two constraints, however, in seeking to 
     shift the costs of the penalty to workers. First, there is 
     considerable evidence that employers refrain from cutting 
     their employees' wages, even when unemployment is high (a 
     phenomenon sometimes referred to as sticky wages). For that 
     reason, some employers might leave wages unchanged and 
     instead employ a smaller workforce. That effect will probably 
     dissipate entirely over several years for most workers 
     because companies that face the penalty can restrain wage 
     growth until workers have absorbed the cost of the penalty--
     thus gradually eliminating the negative effect on labor 
     demand that comes from sticky wages.
       A second and more durable constraint is that businesses 
     generally cannot reduce workers' wages below the statutory 
     minimum wage. As a result, some employers will respond to the 
     penalty by hiring fewer people at or just above the minimum 
     wage--an effect that would be similar to the impact of 
     raising the minimum wage for those companies' employees. Over 
     time, as worker productivity rises and inflation erodes the 
     value of the minimum wage, that effect is projected to 
     decline because wages for fewer jobs will be constrained by 
     the minimum wage. The effect will not disappear completely 
     over the next 10 years, however, because some wages are still 
     projected to be constrained (that is, wages for some jobs 
     will be at or just above the minimum wage).
       Businesses also may respond to the employer penalty by 
     seeking to reduce or limit their full-time staffing and to 
     hire more part-time employees. Those responses might occur 
     because the employer penalty will apply only to businesses 
     with 50 or more full-time-equivalent employees, and employers 
     will be charged only for each full-time employee (not 
     counting the first 30 employees). People are generally 
     considered full time under the ACA if they work 30 hours or 
     more per week, on average, so employers have an incentive, 
     for example, to shift from hiring a single 40-hour, full-
     time employee to hiring two, 20-hour part-time employees 
     to avoid bearing the costs of the penalty.
       Such a change might or might not, on its own, reduce the 
     total number of hours worked. In the example just offered, 
     the total amount of work is unaffected by the changes. 
     Moreover, adjustments of that sort can take time and be quite 
     costly--in particular, because of the time and costs that 
     arise in dismissing full-time workers (which may involve the 
     loss of workers with valuable job-specific skills); the time 
     and costs associated with hiring new part-time workers 
     (including the effort spent on interviewing and training); 
     and, perhaps most important, the time and costs of changing 
     work processes to accommodate a larger number of employees 
     working shorter and different schedules. The extent to which 
     people would be willing to work at more than one part-time 
     job instead of a single full-time job is unclear as well; 
     although hourly wages for full-time jobs might be lower than 
     those for part-time jobs (once wages adjust to the penalty), 
     workers also would incur additional costs associated with 
     holding more than one job at a time.
       In CBO's judgment, there is no compelling evidence that 
     part-time employment has increased as a result of the ACA. On 
     the one hand, there have been anecdotal reports of firms 
     responding to the employer penalty by limiting workers' 
     hours, and the share of workers in part-time jobs has 
     declined relatively slowly since the end of the recent 
     recession. On the other hand, the share of workers in part-
     time jobs generally declines slowly after recessions, so 
     whether that share would have declined more quickly during 
     the past few years in the absence of the ACA is difficult to 
     determine. In any event, because the employer penalty will 
     not take effect until 2015, the current lack of direct 
     evidence may not be very informative about the ultimate 
     effects of the ACA.
       More generally, some employers have expressed doubts about 
     whether and how the provisions of the ACA will unfold. 
     Uncertainty in several areas--including the timing and 
     sequence of policy changes and implementation procedures and 
     their effects on health insurance premiums and workers' 
     demand for health insurance--probably has encouraged some 
     employers to delay hiring. However, those effects are 
     difficult to quantify separately from other developments in 
     the labor market, and possible effects on the demand for 
     labor through such channels have not been incorporated into 
     CBO's estimates of the ACA's impact.


 Effects of Changes in the Demand for Goods and Services on the Demand 
                               for Labor

       CBO estimates that, over the next few years, the various 
     provisions of the ACA that affect federal revenues and 
     outlays will increase demand for goods and services, on net. 
     Most important, the expansion of Medicaid coverage and the 
     provision of exchange subsidies (and the resulting rise in 
     health insurance coverage) will not only stimulate greater 
     demand for health care services but also allow lower-income 
     households that gain subsidized coverage to increase their 
     spending on other goods and services--thereby raising overall 
     demand in the economy. A partial offset will come from the 
     increased taxes and reductions in Medicare's payments to 
     health care providers that are included in the ACA to offset 
     the costs of the coverage expansion.
       On balance, CBO estimates that the ACA will boost overall 
     demand for goods and services over the next few years because 
     the people who will benefit from the expansion of Medicaid 
     and from access to the exchange subsidies are predominantly 
     in lower-income households and thus are likely to spend a 
     considerable fraction of their additional resources on goods 
     and services--whereas people who will pay the higher taxes 
     are predominantly in higher-income households and are likely 
     to change their spending to a lesser degree. Similarly, 
     reduced payments under Medicare to hospitals and other 
     providers will lessen their income or profits, but those 
     changes are likely to decrease demand by a relatively small 
     amount.
       The net increase in demand for goods and services will in 
     turn boost demand for labor over the next few years, CBO 
     estimates. Those effects on labor demand tend to be 
     especially strong under conditions such as those now 
     prevailing in the United States, where output is so far below 
     its maximum sustainable level that the Federal Reserve has 
     kept short-term interest rates near zero for several years 
     and probably would not adjust those rates to  offset the 
     effects of changes in federal spending and taxes. Over 
     time, however, those effects are expected to dissipate as 
     overall economic output moves back toward its maximum 
     sustainable level.


    Why Short-Term Effects Will Be Smaller Than Longer-Term Effects

       CBO estimates that the reduction in the use of labor that 
     is attributable to the ACA will be smaller between 2014 and 
     2016 than it will be between 2017 and 2024. That difference 
     is a result of three factors in particular--two that reflect 
     smaller negative effects on the supply of labor and one that 
     reflects a more positive effect on the demand for labor:
       The number of people who will receive exchange subsidies--
     and who thus will face an implicit tax from the phaseout of 
     those subsidies that discourages them from working--will be 
     smaller initially than it will be in later years. The number 
     of enrollees (workers and their dependents) purchasing their 
     own coverage through the exchanges is projected to rise from 
     about 6 million in 2014 to

[[Page H2882]]

     about 25 million in 2017 and later years, and most of those 
     enrollees will receive subsidies. Although the number of 
     people who will be eligible for exchange subsidies is similar 
     from year to year, workers who are eligible but do not enroll 
     may either be unaware of their eligibility or be unaffected 
     by it and thus are unlikely to change their supply of labor 
     in response to the availability of those subsidies.
       CBO anticipates that the unemployment rate will remain high 
     for the next few years. If changes in incentives lead some 
     workers to reduce the amount of hours they want to work or to 
     leave the labor force altogether, many unemployed workers 
     will be available to take those jobs--so the effect on 
     overall employment of reductions in labor supply will be 
     greatly dampened.
       The expanded federal subsidies for health insurance will 
     stimulate demand for goods and services, and that effect will 
     mostly occur over the next few years. That increase in demand 
     will induce some employers to hire more workers or to 
     increase their employees' hours during that period.
       CBO anticipates that output will return nearly to its 
     maximum sustainable level in 2017 (see Chapter 2). Once that 
     occurs, the net decline in the amount of labor that workers 
     choose to supply because of the ACA will be fully reflected 
     in a decline in total employment and hours worked relative to 
     what would otherwise occur.


Differences From CBO's Previous Estimates of the ACA's Effects on Labor 
                                Markets

       CBO's estimate that the ACA will reduce aggregate labor 
     compensation in the economy by about 1 percent over the 2017-
     2024 period--compared with what would have occurred in the 
     absence of the act--is substantially larger than the estimate 
     the agency issued in August 2010. At that time, CBO estimated 
     that, once it was fully implemented, the ACA would reduce the 
     use of labor by about one-half of a percent. That measure of 
     labor use was calculated in dollar terms, representing the 
     change in aggregate labor compensation that would result. 
     Thus it can be compared with the reduction in aggregate 
     compensation that CBO now estimates to result from the act 
     (rather than with the projected decline in the number of 
     hours worked).
       The increase in that estimate primarily reflects three 
     factors:
       The revised estimate is based on a more detailed analysis 
     of the ACA that incorporates additional channels through 
     which that law will affect labor supply. In particular, CBO's 
     2010 estimate did not include an effect on labor supply from 
     the employer penalty and the resulting reduction in wages (as 
     the costs of that penalty are passed on to workers), and it 
     did not include an effect from encouraging part-year workers 
     to delay returning to work in order to retain their insurance 
     subsidies.
       CBO has analyzed the findings of several studies published 
     since 2010 concerning the impact of provisions of the ACA (or 
     similar policy initiatives) on labor markets. In particular, 
     studies of past expansions or contractions in Medicaid 
     eligibility for childless adults have pointed to a larger 
     effect on labor supply than CBO had estimated previously.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had an interesting conversation today. We have 
talked about the 40-hour workweek and what was established back in the 
1930s under the New Deal, how it switched then under ObamaCare to a bad 
deal. Thirty hours is considered now full-time employment.
  Now we talk about Mr. Young's bill, H.R. 2575, that will be a good 
deal for American workers; actually gives them back those 25 percent of 
the hours that they were going to lose each week.
  Now, we can play ring around the rosy with this and talk about who 
doesn't like whom and how these terrible, terrible businessowners don't 
go to church, they don't have a heart, they don't seem to worship 
anywhere, but they want to make sure that they take advantage of their 
very associates with whom they have a close relationship.
  I can just tell you, after being in business my entire life--I am the 
son of a parts picker from a General Motors warehouse, a guy who worked 
his fingers to the bone to have something. I have got to tell you, it 
is really important, though, sometimes to step out of this room and go 
out into the marketplace and sit down with people who actually sit 
across the desk from somebody and hire them. There is no greater thrill 
for an employer than to be able to tell somebody: You know what? We are 
going to bring you on our team. You are going to be able to work with 
us. You are going to have wages that can support your family, plan for 
the future, do things that you never thought you were going to do, and 
you can do that because of a job.
  Then, suddenly, because the numbers just weren't working for 
ObamaCare--and as the President says all too often, it is just the 
arithmetic--we are going to do something that makes it work for us, not 
for you, but for us. We are going to make full-time employment 30 
hours. We are going to take 25 percent of your workweek away from you, 
and we are going to say it is 30 hours now. And now we say to these 
people who have a great association and a great relationship with the 
people they work with every day, because the success of the business is 
also the success of the employee, we are dividing these people and 
making them enemies in the marketplace. You don't need to do that.
  But only in this great House and only in this great town and only in 
the place that is so out of touch with everyday America can we stand up 
and make these statements and think that they stick.
  2.6 million people are affected by this in a very negative, negative 
way. They are going to lose jobs and they are going to lose hours. It 
is not the fault of the employer because he is trying to make his model 
work. It is the fault of the government who works at such great 
deficits that people can't even begin to understand what it is.
  My little 9-year-old grandson says to me all the time when he looks 
at these things: Grandpa, it just doesn't make sense. A child can get 
it, but we can't get it. And in a time when we need to be more united 
than ever as a country, as we make our way back through a very tough 
time, we need to stand together on these things.
  What I have heard since I got here is: You guys just don't like this 
Affordable Care Act. Help us make it work.
  So we said: Why don't we give people full-time employment, 40 hours 
again?
  That is not the kind of help we want. That doesn't fit our narrative. 
Don't you get it?
  So we stand here today and we have this debate. I told you how the 
New Deal got replaced by the bad deal, and I also told you how this bad 
deal is going to get replaced by a good deal by Mr. Young. H.R. 2575, 
that is going to help America get back to work.
  Honestly, if that is not why we are here today, if that is not what 
our main purpose is, why are we here? What are we doing? Why do we 
continue to spin this so much?
  Hardly any American can walk straight anymore because they get spun 
every day by a message from Washington. We continue to do it, and we 
continue to thump our chest and say we did good, we did really good.
  The lowest labor rate participation in 35 years in a country that has 
been so blessed by our Creator that the rest of the world looks at us 
and says: What in the world are you doing? What is holding you back? 
You have every asset you could possibly want. You have great workers. 
You have great energy sources.
  We have sources of energy that would last for several decades, 
several centuries. Great, great abundance and affordable and accessible 
energy, but we hold back on it. We have assets that make sense to 
everybody in the world but us. We have one-fifth of the world's 
freshwater sitting right in our Great Lakes, and our production per 
acre exceeds anybody's wildest dreams. We can have energy independence. 
We can feed ourselves, and we have drinking water. Everybody else in 
the world wants to have it.
  Let me just ask the gentleman and the rest of the Congress--listen, 
there are 435 of us--if it is really about getting people back to work, 
let's do things that make sense. Let's not beat around the bush about 
some type of an ideological debate over what we are trying to do to 
each other.
  Forty hours a week was always considered full-time employment. It is 
just that simple. It is not hard to figure out.
  I can tell you, as an employer, having to let somebody go is the 
worst feeling you can ever have, and I do go to Mass every day, and I 
do pray about it every night, and I do pray about the future of this 
country. To suggest that anybody, any of the great employers we have 
and the job creators we have around this country are all somehow 
godless, heartless people who don't have feelings is absolutely absurd.
  And it is what continues to make it hard to come to this House every 
day and say: You know what? We are going

[[Page H2883]]

to fix this for America. We are going to get America back to work. We 
are going to do the right thing every day, in every way.
  No, that just doesn't fly here.
  Well, we could go on with this for hours, Mr. Speaker. But I would 
just tell you this. Returning America to a 40-hour workweek just makes 
sense. This is not a hard thing to figure out. If a 9-year-old child 
can understand it, why can't the Congress of the United States? If we 
are truly going to turn this economy around, if we are truly going to 
get people back to work again, let's make sure that we renew that great 
sense of dependency that we have on each other, not divide ourselves 
between those who don't like you and those who do like you.
  By the way, Senator Cruz's poll, I know that the gentleman referred 
to several replies that had gone to that poll. There were 57,444 people 
that actually answered that poll, so I am sure there was probably some 
good stuff on there, too.
  But that is not my point. My point is we have an opportunity here in 
this House like no other place in the world. When something is wrong, 
we can fix it.
  I have heard from the time I came here the problem with a lot of 
these laws that are passed are the unintended consequences. Well, let 
me tell you there may be unintended consequences, but there are not 
uninsured people. There are not people out there that are not feeling 
the pain. There is a lot of pain out there right now. So the unintended 
consequences have certainly not been unpainful.
  You know the other thing? They are also not unfixable. Do you know we 
can fix this today? Do you know we can fix this and send it over to the 
Senate? Do you know we can make people go back to work, make their 
futures look brighter? Do you know we can do that in this House of 
Representatives?
  So forget about whether you are wearing a blue tie or a red tie. 
Forget about whether you have an R on your back or a D on your back, 
and start thinking about who you really represent, because each of us 
in our districts represent not just Republicans, not just Democrats, 
but every single American.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 530, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. TAKANO. I am opposed in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Takano moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2575, to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of the bill add the following:

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by section 2 shall not 
     take effect if it results in any of the following:
       (1) Prohibition on loss of work hours or wages.--A 
     reduction in hours worked, and subsequent loss of wages, in 
     order to skirt requirements to help pay for employee health 
     care costs.
       (2) Ensuring fiscal responsibility and a lower deficit.--
     Any increase in the Federal deficit.
       (b) Protecting Health Insurance for Veterans and Wounded 
     Warriors.--The amendments made by section 2 shall not apply 
     to veterans or their families.
       (c) Being a Woman Must Not Be a Pre-existing Condition.--
     Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an 
     employer to--
       (1) eliminate, weaken, or reduce health coverage benefits 
     for current employees;
       (2) increase premiums or out-of-pocket costs;
       (3) deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions; or
       (4) discriminate against women in health insurance 
     coverage, including by--
       (A) charging women more for their health care than men;
       (B) limiting coverage for pregnancy and post-natal care; or
       (C) restricting coverage of preventive health services, 
     such as mammograms and contraception.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans need to get with the 
program. It is over. Their sorry attempts to dismantle the Affordable 
Care Act must come to an end. My Republican colleagues have become so 
desperate to repeal the Affordable Care Act that they are willing to 
pass legislation that would increase the deficit by $74 billion.
  I am not sure if they are aware, but this is a bill that violates 
their own budget rules and what they claim to be the foundation of 
their political philosophy. But it is okay. I realize they may be 
caught up in their obsession to repeal the ACA. I am here to help my 
friends on the other side of the aisle.
  My final amendment prohibits their bill from taking effect if it 
results in an increase in the deficit or if employers begin to reduce 
hours or wages for workers. My final amendment would also protect 
veterans from the harmful impact of this legislation, and would 
prohibit employers from raising premiums or denying coverage to women.
  No longer is being a woman a preexisting condition. Before the 
Affordable Care Act, women paid 48 percent more for health insurance 
than men. Those days are over and done with. We should not go back to 
them.
  Earlier this week, it was announced that more than 7 million 
Americans have signed up for private health coverage. That is in 
addition to the 3 million who are able to stay on their parents' plans 
until they are age 26 and the millions more who are receiving Medicaid 
for the first time.
  But according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the 
bill before us today would cause 1 million workers to lose their 
employer-sponsored health coverage. A great number of Americans finally 
have access to affordable coverage. Now is not the time to take a step 
back. Here is proof. A resident in my district named Karrie Brooks 
wrote to me, saying:

       The individual coverage that I could afford as a healthy 
     54-year-old woman has been $418 a month, with a $5,000 
     deductible. Yes, this would keep me from going under in an 
     emergency, but I avoided going to the doctor, mostly for the 
     fear that if I used the insurance my policy might be 
     canceled. I found myself skipping annual physicals and 
     mammograms, labs, et cetera, because of the $1,200 tab. I was 
     on a continual quest for something better and more secure.

  She goes on to say:

       Recently, Anthem let me know that I would have to change to 
     a compliant plan. The plan they suggested to me is similar to 
     what I had, but it will cost me $53 less a month. Yes, less. 
     Most important, I know I cannot be canceled.

  I might mention that the annual physical exams, mammograms and other 
preventative services that Ms. Brooks once avoided are now provided at 
no cost to patients under all health plans.
  The Affordable Care Act is a law that millions of Americans like Ms. 
Brooks have embraced and benefited from. Why would anyone want to take 
that away? Do we really want to go back to the days when insurance 
companies had free rein to do as they pleased? Do we really want to go 
back to the days when one illness or one accident could completely 
bankrupt your family? Do we really want to go back to the days when 
premiums skyrocketed year after year with no end in sight?
  My Republican friends, this addiction to repealing the ACA is not 
doing anyone any good. We need an intervention here. This is a safe 
place. Stop standing on the wrong side of history. Let's move on. Let's 
accept that the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land and get back 
to being a productive legislative body.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, let me just make one thing really clear. The 
legislation before the House is really to address the problems of 
ObamaCare, which have reduced hours and reduced wages for workers in 
America.

[[Page H2884]]

  If you really cared about the loss of work hours, which this motion 
purports to do, you vote for this bill because it is ObamaCare that is 
causing workers to go from 40 to 30 hours. If you really cared about 
the deficit--and we know what ObamaCare does in the long term; it 
increases the deficit hugely--you would support this bill so that you 
can get a job, a job that you can work 40 hours, so that you can 
increase your income. And then you can pay taxes on that income, and 
then our economy and our country will be better off, and the American 
Dream won't be in jeopardy. Vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 191, 
nays 232, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 155]

                               YEAS--191

     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--232

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Castor (FL)
     Lankford
     Lynch
     Murphy (PA)
     Payne
     Salmon
     Waxman
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1510

  Messrs. BROOKS of Alabama, CHABOT, GINGREY of Georgia, and Mrs. 
HARTZLER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. MEEKS, Mrs. BUSTOS, Mr. SMITH of 
Washington, and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Carter was allowed to speak out of order.)


Moment of Silence and Prayer for the Fort Hood Shooting Victims, Their 
                      Families, and the Community

  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, tragedy struck the 
heart of Texas at Fort Hood, which we know as ``The Great Place.'' A 
gunman whose motives we do not understand took the lives of three 
American soldiers and wounded 16 more before taking his own life.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time Fort Hood has 
had to endure a tragedy like this.
  Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and 
the Fort Hood community. We pray for a speedy recovery to the wounded 
and extend our deepest condolences to the friends and families of those 
soldiers who lost their lives.
  We stand ready to provide any and all assistance we can to support 
Fort Hood, the soldiers serving there, and the surrounding community.
  Now I yield to my good friend and colleague and ally in supporting 
this incredible community which we both have the honor to represent, 
Congressman Williams.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, it is said that all give some, and some 
give their all. Once again, we have seen tragedy at Fort Hood, ``The 
Great Place,'' and already we are witnessing the strength and 
resilience of a community of brave men and women who not only serve our 
country overseas in enemy territory, but right here at home on military 
posts around the Nation.
  Our prayers are with the fallen troops, those who were injured and 
are still in recovery, and the families of all those involved. Our 
thoughts are with the entire Fort Hood community and great leadership 
team under General Milley as they stand together and push through this 
tough time. We will continue praying for the excellent medical team 
assisting the injured.
  And perhaps most importantly, we will not forget the troops whose 
lives were lost yesterday. The best and the brightest is what we offer 
at Fort Hood. Their service and sacrifice are an

[[Page H2885]]

inspiration reminding us that America doesn't give because it is rich, 
America is rich because it gives, and it has given us all of those we 
honor today.
  May God bless all of the Fort Hood community during this time, and 
may God bless America.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to ask the House 
to join me in a moment of silence and hopefully prayer for the Fort 
Hood community and all those families of the injured and dead at Fort 
Hood today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All present rise for a moment of silence.
  Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248, 
noes 179, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 156]

                               AYES--248

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--179

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Castor (FL)
     Lankford
     Lynch
     Salmon

                              {time}  1521

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________